win
FICGS - Search results for win
There are 1742 results for win in the forum.
Hannes Rada (2006-04-11 10:25:04)
Software ?
Unfortunately there is no download possibility.
Which software are you using ?
In case of Chessbase the following trick should work:
Mark all moves of the game -
rightclick and "say" "copy".
In ChessBase "say" "paste" and the game should appear at your virtual board.
hannes
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-16 11:58:58)
IECG & ICCF webserver
Hello to all.
Congratulations to Ortwin Paetzold who just started with success (src. IECG forum) the new IECG webserver.
Feel free to compare IECG, ICCF & FICGS servers (if you already played on) in this thread, it may help me to feel future improvements, as I have no more time to play on the other ones :(
Thank you for feedback.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-16 12:33:44)
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!
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 (2006-04-23 12:33:40)
Checkmate / Stalemate
Note : Checkmate and stalemate are not automatically converted as a win or draw, your opponent has to resign or accept draw before.. I thought it was a more friendy way, and you have the possibility to send a last message with your move.
Graham Cridland (2006-04-25 16:02:04)
Weird
I'd suggest allowing one player to use them even if the opponent has them turned off, as otherwise it could get confusing... people might not ralize their move hadn't been executed.
Graham Cridland (2006-04-25 17:22:16)
Hmm.
Well, I see your point (I have an opponent like that) but what you're really objecting to is their failure to use their time, not conditional moves (or even fritz). And I can't imagine that forcing people to use their time will be popular.
Just have to NOT send the move back right away, sit down at the board, and figure out where Fritz goes wrong. Our German friend isn't all knowing (especially at the 14-16 ply people only give him much of the time). So you should generally win those games.
Graham Wyborn (2006-04-25 17:42:52)
Please join:-
I joined this site recently and still have not started a game!
Forgive the advert 4 the following games.
We need one more player!
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000002
(type : rated round-robin, time : 40 days, increment : 40 days / 10 moves)
7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent)
elo : 1600-2000
Cridland, Graham (USA) 1700
Grady, Richard (USA) 1654
Höppenstein, Michael (DEU) 1700
Fillion, Nicolas (CAN) 1640
Wyborn, Graham (GBR) 1700
Muller, Henri-Louis (BEL) 1923
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-02 17:43:05)
Who beats Garry Kasparov ?
Funny :)
http://www.ibeatgarry.com/
A "Kasparov number" of 3 for Patrice Verdier, great ;)
Other winners : Janos Helmer, Christian Koch, Farit Balabaev, Marc Lacrosse, David Angeli... Finally everyone beats Garry :))
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-06 15:00:48)
Indeed...
Maybe it's no use to display the PGN score in the 'confirm move' window... !?
I'll consider that.
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 07:49:43)
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 ?
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 ā 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 (2006-05-15 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 (2006-05-18 20:10:13)
ECO code
Search by ECO code (actually by opening) is now implemented. You need to disconnect (or open a new window) to use it.
http://www.ficgs.com/directory_openings.html
Find your opening, then click on the ECO code (not on the magnifying glass, that is linked to wikichess) and you'll have results in a second...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 02:15:13)
Amici sumus
Hello Wayne. I agree, of course, your game was won. Here the problem is not the checkmate rule, it is about the adjudication of a forced win or draw ! Clearly, there's no perfect solution. There will be some abuses, more or less important ! One can't prevent this... Rules (particularly time rules) mean abuses. But don't forget that if a player abuses, it doesn't mean all players do the same intentionally in such a situation. I don't know if your opponent really stopped to play... (what for ? .. you'll get the point anyway) Maybe he just had other things to do these days... Who knows ? Even if this is not the case, it could have been ! It is the same problem (in the forced mate case) everywhere, there's simply nothing else to do than wait, then call referee when a time limit is reached. There's no other reasonable rule ! (and it would be too much work for referees)
Understand me, I don't say it was not an abuse, I just say there's no solution. If I change the rule, there will be abuses in another way ! There will be abuses anyway... Nevertheless, if you have an idea, I'll read it with interest.
Respectfully.
Trent Parker (2006-05-19 08:04:48)
My Overall evaluation of this new site
I really like this site. I like the format of the tournaments, I like the fact that the number of games one can play are not limited.
I like the idea of the best game function, however i do not think it is properly utilised (I have aired my ideas on this elsewhere....)
I personally think the resign for checkmate rule is ok, although none of my games have gotten that far yet. After all a) this does not limit the amount of games that you can play on this site and b) your opponent will run out of time anyhow. So what is the difference? You are going to get the point anyhow.
I have the following criticisms:
I am on Dial up. This site is very slow to play on, very time consuming with the amount of games that i am up to. would it be possible to... I dunno... make it like a javascript or something, just to speed it up a bit. Or perhaps even make the submit button further up the page a bit? Often i have gone out of a game thinking that i have made the move when i have forgotten to click the submit button. (By the way this site would be excellent if i had broadband but i don't.)
I may have some more comments later on but at the moment i've said enough.
Thanks for this site Thibault!
Trent Parker
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-19 08:05:25)
suggestion
I see your points. I play at another corresponce sight, Pacific-mall.com/chess. They have solved the problem there and incidentally it will satisfy those who have mentioned the desirability to chat with your opponent during the game. At pac-mall you can chat about the game or any subject, others can view the game and drop by to say hello, or what ever. Outsiders do not suggest moves but are allowed to talk about a particuliar line after the fact, but in ten years there I have not seen this done only in rare circumstances. In the talk window you can politely tell your oppent "it is mate come up. giving the forced line" or you can just say "Dan the game is lost for you, give your reason. All accept this decorum there. and it is the friendliest cite on the web. The players there range from novices to close to 2300 which I am. By the way, my name there is globalpac, look me up on the ladders (2). Do me a favor and check it out. Tell me what you think.
Thank you
With respect....
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-20 18:39:06)
Equality rule
Hello Daniel.
If the 2300 player scores 5.5 at this tournament, and the 1800 player scores 5, we can imagine the 2300 player makes a bad performance as well (possibly lower than the 1800 player), so the 1800 player should win ?
There's no perfect system, only conditions, but this rule prevents from 'accidents' and grants the rating that is the best players strength indicator. I think this is a way to ensure that the best players will reach the final stages. Because this is a world championship...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-29 23:07:25)
Value of the pieces...
That's exactly what I was thinking about before allowing you to exchange your bishop against two pawns... Actually, I've no idea about it :)
David Grosdemange (2006-05-30 00:28:03)
particularities of big chess ^^
we must take care about the possible endings ^^
for instance , knight+bishop can't win in big chess ^^ whereas 2 bishops (opposite coloured) still can win ^^
about a value , i think something like :
pawn : 1
knight : 2,5
bishop : 4
rook : 6
queen : 11
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
Michael Aigner (2006-06-01 20:48:46)
FICGS reminder
I have a lot of time left in all off my games and got the following reminser mail.
Did anyone get the same strange mail?
This is a reminder.
You did not connect to FICGS for 13275 days.
You may have running games that will be lost on time.
If you don't want to receive any reminder, you can turn off the notification options in preferences. There will be no more than 3 consecutive reminders.
This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-02 12:24:54)
Weiqi : FICGS rules
Thanks for your explanations Lionel. (forum bug is fixed)
I've changed the rules. I would like some opinions before I announce it :
First, now you can pass, just entering 'pass'... Special rules in FICGS are : Suicide of more than one stone is authorized, and infinite repetition means a win (full point) for White. Both players must play until one resign, both players pass (then call referee) or game is adjudicated. Scoring method is area scoring with chinese counting. Eyes in seki count as territory.
Thanks in advance !
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 16:28:11)
Go rules
It's me again :-)
What is the point of the special cases you chose? Why not simply follow the chinese rule? I reread it yesterday and
compared to what you say:
- reappearance of the same board position is forbidden (note that should be easy to check by computer with hash keys associated to positions)
- Seki is not really a special case in chinese rule (it is only in territory scoring): you count stones and enclosed vacant points; others vacant points are share equally.
- Winner is determined by comparing one's score to 180 1/2 (half number of points of the board).
- Komi: 2 3/4 points are deducted from black's score and added to white's.
- After both sides have agreed to end the game (that is after a double pass), if any unsettled positions remain on the board, both sides' stones are treated as alive (that is neat and solve most drawing problems)
- Basically a player that makes an illegal move loses his turn (i.e. in effect passes): that includes repeating the same position (why should white win in such a case?).
That sounds much cleaner IMO.
The only possible draw may be some very complex round robin kos, where the position keeps changing, but I guess we can forget it (and it should eventually been resoved by double pass anyway, even if one side is unhappy: see the preceding neat point).
BTW you can probably find the full text on the Web (I have only a paper version from the 1988 official rules of Chinese Weiqi Association).
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-03 09:50:52)
Chinese rules
After reading the new rules (nice :-)), I have two suggestions:
- maybe you should cleary state that repetition of position leads to a loss (or does it? it is the way I understand the wording, but either way is possible), which is not the case in chinese rules (AFAIK at least in some versions, you just loose your turn).
- maybe you should announce somewhere (not in the rules of course) whether the already running games have to follow the new rules. Knowing the applied komi is important, even in fuseki.
Now let's try them :-)
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 (2006-06-13 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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-14 15:02:11)
Statistics, ELO and performances
For sure, there could be a great work to do with statistics to improve little by little the rules, then we have to find the balance between easy-to-run (and understanding) rules and best ones, but I'm not sure we could improve significantly more, I'll explain why just below. Anyway that's good discussion ! :)
About performance, that's not quite true a 2200 player couldn't perform more than 2050 in stage 1. The rating system do not take account of wins when the ELO difference is superior to 350 points ! So if a 2200 player win all his games with only 2 games (ie. against 2 players rated 1900) calculated, his performance is more than 2400. Now if a 2500 player play stage 1, probably all his games won't be rated at all... Not very interesting :/
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-14 19:21:53)
Elo rating calculation
I just updated the membership page, with the full rating calculation explained.
It is exactly the rules used by the french federation, except the special rule that makes it easier to win than to loose points (and partly provokes Elo inflation). So only one formula is used here.
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.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-14 15:32:51)
Rating formula
Hello Thibault!
Where can I found the exact rating rules of FICGS? I have found only these lines in the Memberships - Terms and Conditions:
"11. 7. Rating rules
The FICGS rating scheme is a numerical scheme, in which percentage results can be exchanged into rating differences, and rating differences into percentage performance probabilities. It is mainly based on the principles of rating calculations of prof. Arpad Elo.
The rating formula : New Elo = ((16 x Elo) + (Games x Perf)) / (16 + Games)
..."
What means "mainly based"?
You write in another topic
"1. The rating system do not take account of wins when the ELO difference is superior to 350 points "
Is this valid only for wins or for all games with a rating difference of more than 350 points?
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-15 17:51:02)
Candidate and World champion...
That's right, Daniel... In another hand, the 1st wch wouldn't be complete without a final match.
Here is a suggestion : What I called 1st wch wouldn't be named 1st wch, it would be only a cycle that will designate the 1st candidate for the 1st wch title and final match... The other one will be the winner of the 1st wch cycle. And both will play the first final match for the 1st wch title. Thus everyone can play immediately, and you play in the 1st world championship.
I think it could satisfy everybody.. !? What do you think ?
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-06-18 14:10:23)
FICGS 1st wch (my last try)
Hello to all,
I think it would be better to start our 1st wch with the regular rules (knock-out and round robin)? Players with rating > 2300 who are not starting in the knock-out can start in the 1st stage of the round robin if they want. If they do not win their group they can neverthless start in the second stage (if their rating is > 2300) of the 1st wch. World champion is the winner of a 24 game knock-out between the winner of the 3rd stage round robin and the 3rd stage knock-out.
What do you think about this?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-19 18:42:16)
FICGS 1st world championship
Hello Heinz-Georg.
While watching the wch waiting list, I realized that there could be an improvement more about this "extra-group". So here is the 1st wch scheme (and next ones, without the special group in the first stage), according to the rules.
Stage 1 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_4__000001
with John Anderson, Petr Makovsky, Daniel Cinca and 5 other players...
-- Round-robin tournaments --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_2__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_3__000001
(...)
And at last, a special and one-time group :
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M__000001
This will be a high rated group, with GM Nigel Davies, GM Amir Bagheri and the ~10 players 2300+ who won't play the knockout tournament according to the rules. The winner of this group will directly qualify for stage 3 round-robin final tournament (a one-time rule). The others can play stage 2 as specified in the rules.
Thus, only the 1st wch will start on july 1st. I think it's fair enough and finally everyone can play...
Stage 2 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_SEMI_FINAL_2__000001
-- Round-robin tournaments --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_1__000001
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_2__000001
(...)
Stage 3 :
-- Knockout tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_KNOCKOUT_FINAL__000001
-- Round-robin tournament --
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_ROUND_ROBIN_FINAL__000001
Stage 4 :
-- Candidates match --
FICGS__CHESS__CANDIDATES_FINAL__000001
Stage 5 :
-- Title match --
FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000001
... if there's a world champion and if he defends his title. Consequently we won't have a stage 5 this time, but as it could happen again in the future...
That's all folks !
Tim Bredernitz (2006-06-19 23:02:26)
Thanks
Thanks to all, especially Amir. I'm curious as to your game number, and how you use the old Spanish game.
Also, Wolfgang makes a good point. I'm not sure the exact stats, but I'm pretty sure almost half or maybe more of the games played at the master level and above end in ties. Chess is a game of creating opportunities and executing against mistakes. Once a player gets to a certain skill level, I'm sure that it's rare that they make mistakes, so its harder for the opponent to win. One side will usually pull out the draw.
Thanks again,
Tim
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-20 16:05:08)
Sicilian opening & Kasparov
I quote from Amir analysis : "But if you want to win, the Sicilian is really the best choice."
I fully agree, I'll just add: but Sveshnikov sicilian :)
Actually, (not a surprise) you just have to see how Black pieces are conducted by Garry Kasparov in sicilian opening to understand what lines to follow, why it is the best choice... and why he became the best player of all times.
He simply always wanted to win, never draw... It is an illustration of a quote in this interesting (but failed) movie by Guy Ritchie, "Revolver" : "To win against a weaker opponent, you have to extend the game field."
Finally, it's the exact opposite of what Bobby Fischer said : "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves". That's not enough IMO, chess openings are a psychologic battle that reflect the state of mind and will. It often decides in a way the result of the game, not by moves, but by the intention.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:25:36)
Blindfolded Chess
THE chess-world (for there is a "world" in chess as in other matters) has lately been startled by a very extraordinary performance at one of the "divans" of the metropolis. A young American has played ten games at once, against an equal number of players, without, on his part, obtaining a single glimpse at any one of the chess-boards.
The feat is not new; but never before was it performed so triumphantly as in the present day. The writers who have ferreted out the early history of this beautiful game have found the name of one Tchelebi, who, nearly nine centuries ago, was able to play at chess without seeing the board. Many persons in the East acquired the art of playing by feeling instead of seeing pieces; but that is a very different affair, since in such a case the sense of touch comes in aid of the memory. In 1266, a Saragen, named Buzecca, came to Florence and at the Palazzo del Popolo played three games at once, looking at one board, but not at the other two. He won two of the games, and made a drawn or abandoned game of the other. As all his competitors were skilful players, his achievement caused irrepressible astonishment. At various times, in later centuries, this mode of play was exhibited by different persons--Ruy Lopez, the author of one of the earliest treatises on chess; Mangiolini of Florence, Zerone, Medrano, Leonardo da Cutri, Paolo Boi, Salvio, and others, many of whom were Spaniards. Boi is reputed to have played three games at once without seeing the board. Damiano, an Italian, who wrote a treatise on chess more than three centuries and a half ago, gave what he called the "Rules" for learning to play without seeing the board; but his rules are worth very little, amounting chiefly to a recommendation to cultivate the memory. Keysler, in his Account of Turin (1749), says: "The late Father Sacchieri, Lecturer on Mathematics at Pavia, was a remarkable instance of the strength of the human understanding, particularly that faculty of the soul we term memory. He could play at chess with three different persons at the same time, even without seeing any one of the three chess-boards. He required no more than that his substitute should tell him what piece his antagonist had moved, and Sacchieri could direct what step was to be taken on his side, holding, at the same time, conversation with the company present. If any dispute arose about the place where any piece should be, he could tell every move that had been made, not only by himself, but by his antagonist, from the beginning of the game, and in this manner incontestably decided the proper place of the piece. This uncommon dexterity at the game of chess appears to me almost the greatest instance that can be produced of a surprising memory."
The most celebrated player of the last century, however, in this peculiar achievement, was the Frenchman Andre Danican, who then, and afterwards, was generally known by the name of Philidor. In 1743, when Philidor was about eighteen years old, M. de Legalle asked him whether he had ever tried to play from memory, without seeing the board. The youth replied, that as had calculated moves, and even whole games, at night in bed, he thought he could do it. He immediately played a game with the Abbe Chenard, which he won without seeing the board. After that, a little practice enabled him to play nearly as well in this as in the ordinary fashion--sometimes two games at once. The French Cyclopedie told of a particular game in which a false move was purposely made by his antagonist; Philidor discovered it after many moves, and replaced the pieces in their proper position. Forty years afterwards, he was residing in England, where he astonished English players by his blindfold achievements at a chess-club in St. James' Street. He played three games at once, with Count Bruhl, Mr. Bowdler, and Mr. Maseres, the first two of whom were reputed the best players at that time in England. Philidor won two of the games, and drew the third, all within two hours. On another occasion, in the same year (1788), he played three games at once, blindfold as before, and giving the odds of pawn and move to one of his antagonists; again did he win two of the games, and draw the third. His demeanor during these labors surprised his visitors as much as his skill, for he kept up a lively conversation during his games.
Many eminent chess-players, including M'Donnell, La Bourdonnaye, Staunton, etc., have achieved these blindfold wonders, in greater or less degree, since the days of Philidor. M'Donnell, a famous player about thirty years ago, played his moves even more rapidly without than with the board; he did not object to any amount of conversation in the room during his play, but disliked whispers. La Bourdonnaye could play within a shade of his full strength without seeing the board; he won against good players, on some occasions two at a time; but when trying the threefold labor, his brain nearly gave way, and he wisely abandoned all such modes of playing his favorite game. Mr. Staunton, the leading English player at present (but who has almost ceased to play since he undertook the editing of an edition of Shakespeare), some years ago played many blindfold games with Harrwitz and Kieseritzky, foreign players of note.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:26:28)
Blinfolded chess ( part II )
Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them.
Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity.
On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again.
Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-27 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 (2006-07-01 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 :)
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 01:52:31)
Symmetrical games
Hello Gino.
What do you mean "symmetrical games" exactly ? (time is an important element)
First case, a player copies move after move another game played at the same time (a move after). Cheating is obvious and it's forbidden (rules)...
Second case, a game is symmetrical but moves are not played "at the same time" : It means suicide in the match for the player who has to win, with either Black or White... The same about the games played by the same player as White, there's no interest to play the same openings, as it would save his opponent's energy and loose chances to provoke a fault.
I had seen you were waiting to move with black in your match, but you can play the same opening with Black, it's up to your opponent to play different openings, otherwise it's good for you...
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 04:06:08)
Symmetrical games
I meant 2 identical games played with different colours usually against different opponents, but in this case against the same person. I'm sorry for not reading the rules, but there is no way to prove in simultaneous games, who is copying who since known theory in certain openings reaches 20+ moves.
However, if someone delays his response until the opponent makes a decision in a critical point of the opening, he can then play the same opening without fear knowing that once that point is reached, he will make a different move.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 16:34:00)
Symmetrical games
I disagree, the farthest you go with identical games, the closer you will get to a position where only one move wins. Once you get there with identical games, then whoever plays first wins, since the other one will be accused of copying the winning move.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 17:55:59)
Symmetrical games
Chess is not a draw yet, someone wins in 70% of the cases(40% white, 30% black), the farther you go identical in two games, the more likely the player on move will find the critical position where only one player wins, even if one is weaker than the other. Players of similar strength or chess knowledge will realize this during the game, once the puzzle of a position becomes more clear, after every move.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 19:40:02)
question
How many identical moves do you need to decide "cheating" is occurring? It will have to be an arbitrary number since there is no reason to say one or three moves before or after a certain number...what if the player shows a previous game played exactly the same way he has played? How do you know he is "cheating" instead of following a previous game? What if previous game was played by himself?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 20:22:29)
Symmetrical games
Gino, it's easy : Symmetrical games are a way to cheat if all (!) moves are played at the same time. The algorithm detects players who MAY have played such games (different numbers of moves are tested), then there must be a human decision by a referee. If such a situation happens, knowing the moves dates, there obviously can't be a single doubt about the player's honesty...
Marc Lacrosse (2006-07-06 11:51:20)
Out-of-time
In game 298 my opponent is said to be out-of-time.
Do I have to do something for claiming the win?
The game does not appear so far in the list of my finished games.
Marc
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
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 ...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-10 02:19:12)
Italy vs. France...& Zinedine Zidane out
Finally........ Not a great happy end (whoever the winner).
Really happy for Italia, not really deceived for France who played it well... We'll probably never know what the Italian player said to Zinedine Zidane... Anyway, that's the game and provocation TOO.. The party is only wasted by this awful move. That's a pity...
That is soccer... Definitely I play chess (and Go) :-)
Cheers & viva Italia.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-07-10 20:06:15)
Vacation and reflection time
Hi Thibault
Vacation seems to be a great problem on all chess servers. The way you manage it is very special. I don't think, that your way is "hard to use". Of course you can always abuse vacation to have more time in time trouble. But your way is very easy. Take 10 days of vacation and play on. And at the end of a year add the not consumed vacation to the reflection time of all of your games.
Now you suggest that a player can not play during his vacation. That is ok. But if the player starts playing during his vacation "loosing the days leave taken and not used yet" is not ok. "Maybe it won't be appreciated in some particular cases". Too much and unnecessary administration. Let the server work.
You don't want to give up your concept (adding vacation time to the reflection time), am I right? You already have announced the corrections on "My messages". If you must change your concept, you would have to rewrite parts of the software.
Nevertheless I would like to say how I imagine the vacation rules on my "perfect server".
I can make the following things with my 4 weeks of holiday:
- If I'm on holiday far away from home or don't like to play chess for a while, I can take a leave in all tournaments.
- If I have much work (sorry - I had to earn money and my employer doesn't take it into consideration, that I would like to play more chess) and can't take care of all tournaments for a while, I take a leave in single tournaments. If the overload is past, I play on without losing the vacation which I perhaps haven't taken.
- I cannot take a leave in a rapid tournament. That is ok - rapid means rapid. There shouldn't be any way to get more time for reflection in this kind of tournament.
It's a pity that no more players express their opinion on this topic in this forum.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-11 03:59:17)
Leave
Hi Thibault,
Everyone has their own opinion about this. Do what you think it's best. My opinion:
If you want to mimic the ICCF method, don't allow play during leave and change to programming to freeze the clock when a player takes leave, therefore not adding the leave time to the reflection time.
If you want to continue with your original idea of adding the leave to the reflection time, then add only 50% of the time, since the clock stops for the player on leave when the opponent is on move anyway.
You may suggest players to take leave after they make a move, in order to take maximun benefit.
Other ideas related to preventing players from dragging out lost games/positions would be to establish a lower limit for leave time say of 7 days; preventing players from going on/off leave multiple times; to prevent exceeding the reflection time.
Another approach would be to try to regulate more the higher limit of time per move, by allowing players to take 30 days per move only once, 20 days per move 3 times, 10 days per move 9 times..etc. you can change the numbers to fit your desire but you get the idea.
Best,
Gino
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-19 12:39:31)
Public comments
Hello Gino.
Indeed, no way to message your opponent if not your turn (you may wait to play a move and ask him - message window when confirming your move).
About public comments, maybe we can improve it... 3 ways IMO :
1) Public comments should be available only when the game is finished.
2) A checkbox in your 'Preferences' to authorize public comments from your opponents. (I don't like this one much..)
3) I specify in the rules that comments are simply authorized.
What do you think is best ?
In my opinion, comments should be always available... I see no reason why it could perturb more than private messages.. By the way, this option was asked on the forum previously when looking for a way to warn players who obviously last games too much... Maybe we could see and wait.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-23 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
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-24 13:03:25)
Future of correspondence chess......
That's a fine analysis, Glen.
However, it's legitimate to consider that chess at a higher level is becoming much harder so that some of the very best players may stop their career, thinking that it's no worth the energy anymore, for results more influenced by 'chance' in statistics...
How many "super-grandmasters" (2700+) said that each point over this mark represents more and more work ?
It's probably the same (and more) in correspondence chess. I do think that it's still possible to improve a lot ! .. but there's a lack of a higher class of players. That's a pity the very best correspondence chess players (ie. former ICCF world champions : Joop van Oosterom, Gert Jan Timmerman...) retire or at least don't defend their title since they achieved it. Of course it's a lot of time, but result is the top class appear to be bigger and there's no clear champion. That's not good IMO to popularize correspondence chess.
All games need champions. I read recently on a Go forum that the success of Chess nowadays was due to his champions (Go is not popular yet in the west because there's noone to represent it, except a manga [Hikaru No Go]..), Garry Kasparov, Bobby Fischer... That's true IMO, and that's what particularly misses to correspondence chess. Maybe things won't change in ICCF (maybe I should pretend to the board :)), but anyway that's why I chose the knockout system for the FICGS world chess championship, and the possibility for the winner to play a final against a challenger. We'll see...
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 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-25 01:51:34)
Handicap moves
That's an idea... Actually I don't think many players (benefiting of the handicap moves) with a 200 points lower rating would be interested, cause it's quite "risky" to play with an advantage. If you win, that's just normal, if you loose (even draw): that's a big defeat.
Such matches may be interesting for both masters (2400+) and amateurs (1600-), maybe even in a simultaneous context, so that draws could satisfy everyone.
Peter Konig (2006-07-30 21:42:51)
edit article
I'd like to insert a few comments on the French Winaver variation. For example after e4 e6, d4 d5, Nc3 Bb4. Prsently the whole comment is:
"
============
Contributors : Toncho Tenev
"
I see that Tenev has a mich higher rating than me. Only he did not say anything on this line. And I can not modify this non existent article!? - This is not in the spirit of quality assurance.
Graham Wyborn (2006-08-01 00:27:16)
Northern Ireland Flag???
Should be, I think, the Ulster Flag. The image you linked to was for Eire!
Trust the following link shows the correct flag.
http://www.flags2000.co.uk/flag.htm?cref=S137
Marc Lacrosse (2006-08-02 22:14:10)
Request for adjudication & rules
In game *** my opponent has a completely lost position for more than 2 months by now and refuses to resign.
How long will he require that I play child-level uninteresting moves?
I announce mate in 8 moves and request adjudication against this completely disgraceful way of playing.
I am evidently able to prove the win.
I already said how I felt this kind of proceeding to be completely disgusting.
If my requirement is not fulfilled I will leave this site being the first master-class tournament winner.
Nice...
Marc
Jose Antonio Marin Millan (2006-08-02 22:44:12)
Thanks for the answer
Thanks for the answer. He thought that all the players when following including in the waiting list were going to be including in a new group. I understand that single a group of 7 players in this First WHC gambles warm
Greetings
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 20:30:44)
Update of the 11.5 rule
A small update of the 11.5 rule, that should clarify some ambiguous cases (referee calls are stored) :
"In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious. If a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."
Gino Figlio (2006-08-04 02:55:44)
tricks
Hi Thibault,
Players use tricks to distract the opponent when they suspect they are losing, one of them is offering draws many times, another trick is to delay the game.
I am afraid this rule can be used as another trick by a player losing the game, but still able to call the referee and claim a draw.
If you allow them to do this once a month, even better for them.
I suggest using more strict criteria to call the referee: obvious checkmate or tablebase win...otherwise this rule may be abused to distract the opponent...
Best,
Gino
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-04 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 (2006-08-07 22:23:56)
Suggestion (sponsors)
Thibault,
Are you looking at the possibility of getting some sponsors for this FICGS website in the near future?!
If it materialises, it'll be a win-win situation for all.
Graham Wyborn (2006-08-09 16:03:46)
(download) button
When I first press the (download) button I move to:- http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move
&...
which does not show the (download) button.
When I press the (download) button a second time it moves to :- http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move &...
where I can now see the (download) button.
Does the above help? I was looking at game 690.
If the above does not help, could it be my IE settings. I am using IE 6 with Windows XP Home
Jaimie Wilson (2006-08-11 16:10:55)
Unrated miniatures
I read that games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit or obvious cheating). So if my opponent plays brilliantly, lures me into a catastrophic error and mates me on move 9, then he or she would not get any rating benefit.
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)...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-08-22 14:55:18)
How to know future rating
Hello to all.
A reminder about future rating and personal statistics... You can check it by going into Preferences, click on the picture just after your chess rating, a new window will appear, then click on "elo"... Several pages with different informations will be displayed.
You can check these informations for any player, by clicking on this pic in the rating list.
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-22 17:48:09)
I prefer the following Gambit
Ok, here my idea, for one of the following thematic tourneys.
The Goering Gambit:
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.d4 exd4
4.c3 dxc3
5.Nxc3
This Gambit is full of great tactical play.
Benny
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-22 20:12:07)
Disproved
Ok,
i got my knowledge by GM Roman Dzindzihasvili's Video-Tapes, some studys and a lot of played games of Kings Gambit. Latvian isn't good too. I think, with a good computer and a good knowledge about kings gambit, the minimum what black can reach is a draw. If white play latvian, black will win ever. Latvian Gambit is so easy to calculate with a computer. Black has from the beginning on, no move-options.
But we can try both desasters in a thematic-tourney.
Benny
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-22 20:15:34)
^^^^^^^^Once again...
Black play the Latvian. And whit will win ever in each variation. Thats my opinion.
Benny
Jay Melquiades (2006-08-23 18:35:23)
rapid tourneys
if the time control in rapid tourney is a move/day,do you have until 23:59:59 server time to make a move or its a forfeit win???
this expiring mind wants to know :)
Benjamin Aldag (2006-08-26 01:37:37)
"NEW" Opening Idea !
Hello,
i would be very happy, to see the following line in a thematic opening tourney:
1.e4 e5
2.Nf3 Nc6
3.Bc4 Bc5
4.c3 Nf6
5.d4 exd4
6.cxd4 Bb4+
7.Nc3 Nxe4
8.0-0 0-0!
ok folks, i am searching for this line in my database and found just a handfull games, played by low rated players. I am searching in many books for this line, but i found nothing ! I've analysed this line and i believe, this line is good for BLACK ! What do you think about this line ??? Do you see more than me ? Do you have any GM-Commentary about this line ? Maybe in an ebook or something else ? Please help me to find the answer, why this line is never played by some very good players. It would be helpful, to start a thematic-tourney'bout this nice line.
Benny
Don Burden (2006-08-26 18:51:54)
Opening Idea
I'd say it is a fairly big advantage to black. He's a solid pawn up and threatens to win another. Found two games in my database with higher rated players:
[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Majewski, Jan"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2335"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "122"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8.
O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. Ba3 Nxd6 14. Bxd6
cxd6 15. Qxd6 Ne8 16. Qd5 Nf6 17. Qd6 Ne8 18. Qd2 d6 19. Ng5 Nf6 20. Rad1 d5
21. Bb3 h6 22. Ne4 Bg4 23. Nxf6+ Qxf6 24. f3 Qb6+ 25. Qd4 Be6 26. Bxd5 Bxd5 27.
Qxb6 axb6 28. Rxd5 Rxa2 29. f4 Rc8 30. Rd3 Rc2 31. Ree3 Ra8 32. h4 Raa2 33. Rg3
Rd2 34. Rde3 Kf8 35. Re4 b5 36. Re5 Rab2 37. Rc5 b4 38. Rc8+ Ke7 39. cxb4 Rxb4
40. Rxg7 Rxf4 41. Rh7 Rf6 42. Kh2 Ke6 43. h5 Rd5 44. g4 Rd4 45. Kg3 Rd3+ 46.
Kg2 Rd6 47. Re8+ Kd7 48. Rf8 Ke7 49. Rhh8 Ke6 50. Re8+ Kd5 51. Re7 b6 52. Rf8
Rf4 53. Kg3 Rdf6 54. Rc8 Rf3+ 55. Kg2 Rf2+ 56. Kg1 R2f4 57. Rg8 b5 58. Re3 b4
59. Kg2 Kd4 60. Rb3 Rb6 61. Kg3 Rf1 0-1
[Event "ICCF MN/12 corr"]
[Site "ICCF corr"]
[Date "1995.06.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Mathias, Manfred"]
[Black "Chorvat, Marian"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "C54"]
[WhiteElo "2370"]
[BlackElo "2305"]
[PlyCount "110"]
[EventDate "1995.??.??"]
[Source "www.chesslib.no"]
[SourceDate "2006.04.01"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. c3 Nf6 5. d4 exd4 6. cxd4 Bb4+ 7. Nc3 Nxe4 8.
O-O O-O 9. d5 Bxc3 10. bxc3 Ne7 11. Re1 Nf6 12. d6 Nf5 13. dxc7 Qxc7 14. Qb3 d5
15. Bd3 Be6 16. Rb1 b6 17. Qc2 g6 18. Bb2 Ne8 19. Re2 Neg7 20. Rbe1 Rfe8 21.
Qd2 Nd6 22. c4 dxc4 23. Qc3 f6 24. Bxg6 hxg6 25. Qxf6 Qf7 26. Rxe6 Qxf6 27.
Rxf6 Rxe1+ 28. Nxe1 Re8 29. Nf3 Re2 30. Be5 Nf7 31. Bd4 Re6 32. Kf1 Rxf6 33.
Bxf6 b5 34. Bc3 Ne6 35. h4 Nf4 36. a3 Nd5 37. Bb4 a6 38. g3 Kg7 39. Ke2 Kf6 40.
Ba5 Nd6 41. g4 Nb7 42. Bd2 a5 43. Bg5+ Kg7 44. Ne5 c3 45. Kd3 b4 46. Kc4 Nb6+
47. Kd4 Nc5 48. axb4 axb4 49. f3 Nd5 50. Nc4 Ne6+ 51. Kd3 Nxg5 52. hxg5 b3 53.
Na3 Kf7 54. f4 c2 55. Nxc2 Nxf4+ 0-1
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-01 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.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-09-04 10:51:45)
To Charlie on cheaters ...
Hi Charlie
I completely agree with the first sentences of your post, but I cannot accept the second part of it.
I use computers, and books, and databases and lots of prepared personal analyses for my games here.
I do not accept to be called a cheater : this is explicitly allowed by the rules here, and it is even one of the main reasons for which I joined this association.
There are lots of other sites where computer use is forbidden : you can for sure play there and complain when you will guess that your opponent is making use of electronic assistance, but not here.
Moreover for me it is pure shortness of sight if you are not able to imagine that playing with computer help can be both creative and even fascinating.
Take any of your games and do a quick analysis with several chess programs : you will see that for a large majority of positions they completely disagree on which is the best move to play. The human touch is critically decisive when playing with computer help.
And resulting games are far more complicated and interesting in my eyes.
Another point is that for myself I prefer that my opponents do not spoil an interesting game for which I have spent hours and hours of analysis along weeks of play through a stupid human blunder that ends it all suddenly.
I do pretty well understand that you prefer to play on your own. But what is the problem if you have a computer-assisted opponent? Either you will loose and will maybe learn something either you will win and it will be a pretty good achievement. And surely it will be a better game. The only problem I can see is the possible frustration not to be able to win many games.
Then I repeat : go on another site where computer assistance is forbidden. But I have to say that having played on such sites for years you will find _many_ cheaters... Pure human play cannot be enforced ...
But please stop saying that players like myself are cheaters and poor ignorants.
It is sure we play a different game but why should you be entitled to say that mine is worse than yours?
Regards
Marc
Benjamin Aldag (2006-09-04 16:52:11)
Cheaters ?!
Hey Charlie,
i understand your opinion about computer-assistence. But we are no cheaters ! The difference between the cheaters and us is, that you will often lose your games, when you will only play computermoves. A good chessplayer with a good machine, will ever win versus a bad chessplayer with a good machine. You would kill yourself, when u ever play only computermoves. Ask yourself, why some of corr-chess players have a rating between 2600 and 2700 or more and many players "just" 2300 ? Are the players with a rating over 2600 the better hardware and the better chessengine ? I say NO ! These playres know, how to win versus all these little computermovers. A Computer will ever make mistakes and in corr-games its an interessting part, to search for these mistakes. A Human-Chess-Brain and a computer can be an unbeatable team !
Benny
Ulrich Imbeck (2006-09-05 12:17:16)
Winning time?
If i am faster during my first 10 moves I save this time for my second 10 moves?
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.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-06 18:07:31)
Re:
I don't think Kram. will repeat it again. He's a very shrewd, master strategist. He'll keep Top. guessing. He would have found a weak point in Top. by now & aim to exploit it to the hilt. Experience in this sort of stage is on Kram.'s side because he has already faced the likes of Kasp. in lengthy battles. He even had the tenacity to win a last crucial game against Leko, if you remember. Kram. fears no one.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-06 23:44:33)
Vladimir Kramnik vs. Peter Leko
Hi Dinesh.
I still can't explain myself this incredible outcome in Brissago. First, this "extraordinary" Marshall gambit, Leko leading the whole match... At last Kramnik winning the very last game. Then Peter Leko smiling, just saying (~) : "I'm glad about my play." .. and that's finished.
It just reminded me the second match Kasparov vs. Deep Blue ...
Anyway, it's always time to be paranoid :-)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-07 06:40:18)
Re:
I'm almost certain that Kram. will dump the 1.e4 opening, as his only Achille's Heel seems to be all out tactics (which Top. is brilliant at), and some blunders (but that was when he was ill).
Regarding Leko.......he might fancy his chances if he meets Kram. again, but I don't see any sorta match up, as Anand is waiting in the wings to have a shot at either Kram. or Top.
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-09-07 06:57:25)
On my computer...
29.5s
PIII 800mhz, 320 RAM, Win98, Firefox, ADSL 300kbps
It does rewards patience, though. It is much better to see the board, and not only the notation.
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 didnt you try to convert your material advantage straight away? I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. It was more practical to wait. "
Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion
Lionel Vidal (2006-09-09 16:39:44)
Correspondence backgammon?
Where would be the fun? I mean, a program like Jellyfish could give me in a few hours by simulation the best move in a probability sense without any effort. Of course I can still play aginst the odds, but what would be the point to play inferior moves in the long run? (of course you can play, say in a casino, knowing you will loose in the long run and still have fun (I don't but that's only me), but in a strategic game?)
Compare to chess: an engine, say Fritz, can give what its evaluation function marks as the best move... but I can still play another one, because I see a better plan, or because I set up an ending I know I will draw (or win :-)... in short the proposed move may not be the best one, and I still have to make a choice... In other words, I may still have the illusion I have a chance :-)
The cases where Jellyfish will not give the *tried* and *validated* best moves are very rare with today computers... so where would be the fun being a button-man or being crushed in the long run by such one?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-10 14:31:47)
Sudden death games !
Hello to all.
Does someone have any idea about chess openings that would give White 50% chances to win & Black 50% chances to win OR draw, or reverse ? (in absolute, not ie. blitz statistics)
Thinking about 1.e4 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 or 1.Nf3 d5 2.Ng1, in examples... but it's hard to know. Databases can't help much as very few games with obvious errors have been played. So mad gambits could be real challenges to play & analyze, with no draws at the outcome...
Your feelings ?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-10 16:19:37)
Re: Money Tournaments.......
I'm optimistic! Probably double-player matches might be more popular than multi-player tournaments in Money Tournaments category, as it gives a better chance to win. Some players might play it for fun too, if GMs could be challenged for a fee. Many possibilities why it'll be a success.
Gino Figlio (2006-09-11 13:45:43)
OTB idea
Why not for a 1-game match, use the OTB tie-breaking idea of black winning with the draw but starting with less time on the clock, 20% less in a fast time control match?
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 :)
Ulrich Imbeck (2006-09-12 01:07:36)
White to win
What's the matter with 1.e4 d6 2.d4 Lb7 3.Ld3 f5? I think it's won for white.
You should look for a position hat would give White 50% chances to win & Black 50% chances draw.
Only well known openings can give an experience for a score.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-13 12:36:32)
Re: Elo
Hello Alarich.
You finished 4 games until now. 3 of these ones are unrated (win & elo difference > 350 points OR win & less than 10 moves played).
1 rated game has been taken in account when the last rating calculation occured : Game 2177 (draw)
That's ok :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-14 12:01:30)
Re: Greetings from GameKnot :)
Hi Thomas !
7 players of all levels are ok to play this challenge already. I'm sure we'll complete our team in about a week. And I have no doubt about that, we'll win this match ! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 17:09:17)
Scoring function for Go
The scoring function for Go is now online !
When you are to play your move, there's a (Score) link under the Goban, that leads to the score page. Just enter a stone coordinates (ie. f14) for each group to remove, separated by space or coma, then Submit.
The score is calculated by covering the board horizontally, then vertically... If the two results are near from each other, the estimation may be quite good. Empty points between black stones and white stones are shared !
Here is an example - http://www.ficgs.com/game_814.html
Game 814, removed groups : m19 l16 f13 d11 f7 g4 k4 b5
Scoring method : Horizontally
Black points : 240 White points : 106 Unknown points : 15
* Scoring method : Vertically
Black points : 238 White points : 102 Unknown points : 21
Black wins the game by about 135 points.
Reminder : This program doesn't decide the game, it gives an evaluation only !! .. It's up to the players to discuss the score, then resign.
All feedbacks welcome !
Elmer Valderrama (2006-09-15 19:59:46)
two moves from the start
Interesting idea, Thibault, for having a winner
in just one-game match.
(I mean of course giving clear
advantage to White from the start in a must-win
game (any other result would be failure).
In this same line of thought, I would suggest
to give White two consecutive starting moves
(no captures allowed), W player chooses which
are those two moves ( 0.e4 1.d4 or 0.e4 1.Nf3
or 0.e4 1.Bc4 or why not 0.e4 1.Qh5!? or whatever )
However, in all cases where White is giving a significant
advantage at start, I believe, White has a 2/3 (66%) chance
to win, and 1/3 (34%) to draw, so that in a match
a strong player with White should go the next round.
(assuming he has played the best two consecutive moves
and then mantained the advantage all the way --although
with the current wonderful defending capabilities of
the engines it could add some serendipity to the game ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-15 20:17:44)
two moves from the start
"White has a 2/3 (66%) chance to win, and 1/3 (34%) to draw" ?? ... you mean "to draw or loose" ?
Great idea, this move 0. Statistically, this is quite the same for : 1.Nf3 d5 2.Ng1 ... but 66% wins for Black seems a lot !? .. I would say about 40 to 50%, maybe less.
So, what chances for 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 .. ?
And what about 1.Nf3 Nf6 2.d4 Ng8 3.e4 Nf6 4.Nc3 Ng8 .. ? :)
Elmer Valderrama (2006-09-16 10:20:16)
color won't matter
yes, color or turn to move at start has little importance: Black to move, he would play 0.d5 1...Nf6 now is White to make second move 2.Nf3 for example..then Black would have 66% chances to win...
(or at least significantly more chances than in the usual starting position)
I mean 66% to win, 33% to draw and 1% to lose ;) (that's 34% to draw and lose)
I think the more moves are given to White(Black) the more advantage he will have, i.e. statistics would be higher to win (like 80%, 19.5% to draw and 0.5% to lose)
However all this could be tested in practice, it certainly could add more picant (spice?!) to the game ;)
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")
James Stripes (2006-09-18 15:56:13)
27 years ago
When I first played correspondence chess, books were encouraged and the few chess engines in existence were garbage. Good quality engines and comprehensive databases have changed the nature of correspondence play.
Nearly everyone permits databases (electronic books), although endgame tablebases are less clear. Engines are permitted some places, while banned others. This site is my first foray into CC where engine use is permitted, but I've played at dozens of sites where I can use databases. (I don't believe I've ever reached a position in which tablebases would be useful, except a few elementary positions that any average player could win against Kramnik.)
These inter-site matches, it seems to me, nurture connections across the broad community of correspondence players--a rapidly expanding coterie of chess aficionados thanks to the likes of GameKnot and similar sites.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-09-19 11:45:18)
A tool for knowing each others' chess
In the "classement" page (the one that lists all current members), it could be nice to have two additional columns :
Finished games
Running games
giving the number of games the player is involved with
And (ideally?) clicking on one of the numbers could lead to a listing of the corresponding games in PGN? :-)
It could be a nice tool for knowing who is who, who plays what, who is active or not.
Your opinion ?
Marc
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
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-19 16:49:05)
Really!
After 4.. Bc5 white wins.
Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-19 19:10:56)
Really!
Yes! It is not easy to win. But white wins, i still think. OK - you interested me in that thematic. I will join! And, I am sure, I will all white games. :D
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-20 01:17:58)
+-
Look in WikiChess. About cxd6 - white wins after Bf7+ Kf8 d3. About Nxd6 - white wins after Qf3. IMO
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-20 03:35:19)
I understand.
But i still believe that white wins!!! :D
I made new move in Kxf2 variation, and some moves instead of exd5. And I believe that it is possible to analyze all lines. Of course, not in one day. May be in 10, 30, 100, 1000 days. :D :D :D
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-21 14:50:47)
LOL?
Qoute: "I will win all white games". Bullshit! Look at game 3336.
:(
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-23 21:19:51)
Kramnik wins Game 1
Vladimir Kramnik - Veselin Topalov (game 1)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 dxc4 5.Bg2 Bb4+ 6.Bd2 a5 7.Qc2 Bxd2+ 8.Qxd2 c6 9.a4 b5 10.axb5 cxb5 11.Qg5 0-0 12.Qxb5 Ba6 13.Qa4 Qb6 14.0-0 Qxb2 15.Nbd2 Bb5 16.Nxc4 Bxa4 17.Nxb2 Bb5 18.Ne5 Ra7 19.Bf3 Nbd7 20.Nec4 Rb8 21.Rfb1 g5 22.e3 g4 23.Bd1 Bc6 24.Rc1 Be4 25.Na4 Rb4 26.Nd6 Bf3 27.Bxf3 gxf3 28.Nc8 Ra8 29.Ne7+ Kg7 30.Nc6 Rb3 31.Nc5 Rb5 32.h3 Nxc5 33.Rxc5 Rb2 34.Rg5+ Kh6 35.Rgxa5 Rxa5 36.Nxa5 Ne4 37.Rf1 Nd2 38.Rc1 Ne4 39.Rf1 f6 40.Nc6 Nd2 41.Rd1 Ne4 42.Rf1 Kg6 43.Nd8 Rb6 44.Rc1 h5 45.Ra1 h4 46.gxh4 Kh5 47.Ra2 Kxh4 48.Kh2 Kh5 49.Rc2 Kh6 50.Ra2 Kg6 51.Rc2 Kf5 52.Ra2 Rb5 53.Nc6 Rb7 54.Ra5+ Kg6 55.Ra2 Kh5 56.d5 e5 57.Ra4 f5 58.Nxe5 Rb2 59.Nd3 Rb7 60.Rd4 Rb6 61.d6 Nxd6 62.Kg3 Ne4+ 63.Kxf3 Kg5 64.h4+ Kf6 65.Rd5 Nc3 66.Rd8 Rb1 67.Rf8+ Ke6 68.Nf4+ Ke5 69.Re8+ Kf6 70.Nh5+ Kg6 71.Ng3 Rb2 72.h5+ Kf7 73.Re5 Nd1 74.Ne2 Kf6 75.Rd5 1-0
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-24 20:53:32)
Kramnik wins Game 2
Veselin Topalov - Vladimir Kramnik (game 2)
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Bg6 10.e4 0-0 11.Bd3 Bh5 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Qe3 Bg6 15.Ng5 Re8 16.f4 Bxd3 17.Qxd3 f5 18.Be3 Nf8 19.Kh1 Rc8 20.g4 Qd7 21.Rg1 Be7 22.Nf3 Rc4 23.Rg2 fxg4 24.Rxg4 Rxa4 25.Rag1 g6 26.h4 Rb4 27.h5 Qb5 28.Qc2 Rxb2 29.hxg6 h5 30.g7 hxg4 31.gxf8Q+ Bxf8 32.Qg6+ Bg7 33.f5 Re7 34.f6 Qe2 35.Qxg4 Rf7 36.Rc1 Rc2 37.Rxc2 Qd1+ 38.Kg2 Qxc2+ 39.Kg3 Qe4 40.Bf4 Qf5 41.Qxf5 exf5 42.Bg5 a5 43.Kf4 a4 44.Kxf5 a3 45.Bc1 Bf8 46.e6 Rc7 47.Bxa3 Bxa3 48.Ke5 Rc1 49.Ng5 Rf1 50.e7 Re1+ 51.Kxd5 Bxe7 52.fxe7 Rxe7 53.Kd6 Re1 54.d5 Kf8 55.Ne6+ Ke8 56.Nc7+ Kd8 57.Ne6+ Kc8 58.Ke7 Rh1 59.Ng5 b5 60.d6 Rd1 61.Ne6 b4 62.Nc5 Re1+ 63.Kf6 Re3 0-1
Great game, great match, real chess !
Wayne Lowrance (2006-09-29 04:56:57)
Tournaments winners list updated
Where is this, how u find it
Wayne
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-29 13:03:02)
Psycho(logical) games by Topalov's team?
[moderator : please don't copy exact content (news, articles..) from other websites]
Common toilet for both players.
29.09.2006 The Appeals Committee of FIDE has taken a decision on protest by the Bulgarian delegation who, after viewing the video tapes, stated that Kramnik would visit the toilet too often. A common toilet will be opened for both players.
The Appeals Committee : FIDE Deputy President IM Georgios Makropoulos, Continental President for Americas FM Jorge Vega, FIDE Vice President Zurab Azmaiparashvili.
More - http://www.chessbase.com
Graham Wyborn (2006-09-29 14:06:02)
Clock - Out of time
Does my opponent still have to resign. This is my first win with "Out of Time"
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-29 13:07:02)
Tournaments winners list updated
Hello Wayne.
Tournament winners are displayed when you browse the tournaments lists in 'Tournaments' or 'My tournaments'.
This link gives all results so far in all tournaments played on FICGS :
http://www.ficgs.com/category__all.html
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-29 13:09:10)
Psycho(logical) games?...........
Silvio Danailov.,
Manager of the Bulgarian team says:
To all mass media
Ladies and Gentlemen,
After we got acquainted with the ruling of the Appeals Committee of the Topalov vs. Kramnik world championship match we deem it necessary to point out the following:
The ruling in its present form is not satisfactory to us since it practically does not result in any change. Mr. Kramnik will be able to visit the new bathroom an unlimited number of times without being subject to further control.
We would accept the current relaxation rooms to continue to be used provided that the presence of controllers in both rooms is ensured.
When the two players need to go to the bathroom, they should be accompanied by an assistant arbiter.
The checks carried out in the relaxation rooms were made only by experts of the Organizing Committee, whereas our experts were present as observers and only after the second game.
We find it difficult to understand why is it that the accredited journalists are denied access to the video tapes from the relaxation rooms.
The World Champion Veselin Topalov is outraged by the suspicious behavior of his opponent Mr. Vladimir Kramnik who in actual fact takes his most significant decisions in the bathroom.
Despite the above, in the name of the chess game and out of respect to FIDE, to Kalmikia and the millions of chess lovers, Veselin Topalov is willing to continue his participation in the match provided that measures to guarantee fair play are taken.
If the match were to continue, the World Champion would refrain from shaking hands with Mr. Kramnik before the games and would not take part in joint press conferences with him. Veselin Topalov will make statements for the media separately.
We look forward to receiving your response by 14.30 h hoping that it will give concrete answers to the questions that we pose.
28.09.2006
Elista Sincerely:
Silvio Danailov
Manager of the Bulgarian team
Dinesh De Silva (2006-09-29 13:14:25)
Kramnik's team says...........
Kramnik threatens to stop playing the match......
29.09.2006 Statement from the team of Vladimir Kramnik, rejecting the decision of the Appeals Committee of FIDE : "The protests of the Topalov team and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramniks privacy."
Elista, 29 September 2006
Open Letter to FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov
Copied to Executive Committee of Kalmykia Mr. Valery Bovaev, Chief Arbiter Mr. Geurt Gijssen, Russian Chess Federation
Dear Mr. President,
The Appeals Committee of the World Championship Match between Veselin Topalov and Vladimir Kramnik made the following decision on the protest of the Topalov Team:
to close both the toilets in the players rest rooms and to open another toilet that will be available only to the two players
The Kramnik team received the mentioned decision a few hours before the start of game 5 and was officially informed about the protest of Mr. Topalov only yesterday evening, 10 p.m., 28 September 2006. With such a decision the WCC Committee is clearly violating both the rules and regulations of the WCC match and the rights of Mr. Kramnik.
The relevant clause in contract of Mr. Kramnik expels: FIDE shall provide a rest room and toilette for the players during the WCC match in the playing hall and close to the stage (if possible backstage) to be equipped with a live monitor furnished with coffee and tea as well as with light refreshments.
The reasons that Mr. Kramnik is entering his own bathroom often is simple: The restroom is small and Mr. Kramnik likes to walk and therefore uses the space of the bathroom as well. The Appeals Committee has been informed about the issue before they decided. It should also be mentioned that Mr. Kramnik has to drink a lot of water during the games.
On the request of Mr. Topalov the agreed live monitors have been removed as well as the shower cabines in the bath rooms. The moves are provided on demonstration boards only. The substance of Mr. Topalov protests (dated 22, 24 and 28 September 2006) were basically always met by the approval of the Appeals Committee. Everything has been done here to satisfy Mr. Topalovs requests.
On a regulary basis the restrooms and toiletts are heavily checked by specialists, obviously local police forces. This goes together with the arrival of the players. The arbiters are observing all the measures. One representative of each team has the right of being present in order to observe the activities. The playing area is banned from signals and the glas wall protects from any kind of view contact and/or body language. There is not a single reason or evidence to believe that a player would have any kind of cheating possibilities.
It is and was no problem for the organization to assure all necessary measures in order to avoid any kind of cheating. By starting the match both participants agreed all the playing conditions de facto and de jure and the conditions are therefore legally binding. Any change of the playing conditions without a good reason would in our understanding request the approval of both players which is not the case here.
Mr. Kramnik believes that the latest decision should increasingly concern the world of chess as it shows very clearly and once again the biased stand of the Appeals Committee members involved. In person: Mr. Makropolous, Mr. Azmaiparashivili (well known as a close friend to Mr. Danailov), Mr. Gelfer (now replaced by Mr. Vega). Therefore Mr. Kramnik requests to exchange the mentioned persons immediately. Enough is enough.
We would like to add that the recent decision not only insults Mr. Kramnik but is clearly critizing both the excellent work of the local organisation at Elista and the nominated arbiters. Yesterday evening the chief arbiter and the head of the excutive committee once again confirmed that the indirect accusations of cheating are nonsense.
The protests of the Topalov team into the direction of Mr. Kramnik and the suspicions in the press release of Mr. Topalov are utterly disgraceful and are touching Mr. Kramniks privacy. We do not think that the Topalov team has any right of getting access to the recordings. This shall be job of the nominated arbiters only.
The Topalov team includes a parapsychologist and more people which are obviously having no other tasks as to distract and to insult Mr. Kramnik especially since their team is realizing that Mr. Topalov finds himself in a difficult situation. This is what we call an utterly unfair behaviour which is not in accordance with the FIDE Code of Ethics. The decision taken by the Appeals Committee can only be seen as another attempt to disturb Mr. Kramniks concentration since it is difficult to understand what kind of improvement it shall be to have one toilet instead of two.
Our team does not trust the objectivity of the Appeals Committee anymore. Therefore it makes no sense for us to bring a protest to this table and Mr. Kramnik strongly insists once again that the members of the Appeals Committee will be changed immediately and that the heads of the Organizing Committee are taking their responsibilities.
In the meanwhile Mr. Kramnik will stop playing this match as long as FIDE is not ready to respect Mr. Kramniks rights, in this case to use the toilet of his own restroom whenever he wishes to do so.
Further and more detailed legal investigations are already in process.
On behalf of Vladimir Kramnik
Yours sincerely,
Carsten Hensel
(Manager to Vladimir Kramnik, Classical World Chess Champion)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 03:31:40)
Topalov vs. FIDE vs. Kramnik
I agree with you, Nigel.
Obviously Topalov's team 'manipulates' FIDE against Kramnik. Worked quite well... But now the situation seems to be best for both Topalov and Kramnik... If the match does not continue Kramnik will stay clear classical World Chess Champion (3-1) with a new legitimacy, Topalov will stay clear FIDE World Chess Champion (playing the best chess) and FIDE will remain... the organizer of chess championships in Kalmykia... :/
Finally, only FIDE made a clear mistake during the event, but is it so important... Kramnik wins, Topalov wins, Ilyumzhinov always wins...
I hope the match will continue but I'm not very optimistic.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-09-30 03:39:05)
Vladimir Kramnik - Open letter
Open Letter To
FIDE President
Kirsan Iljumshinov
Russian Chess Federation
Elista, 29. September 2006
Requests of Vladimir Kramnik
To proceed with GAME 5
Clause 3.17.1., Schedule 2 of the contract:
All protests must be submitted in writing to the Appeals Committee not more than 2 hours after the relevant playing session.
The protest made by the Topalov Team were not made within this window after game 4 (27 September 2006) but only hit the FIDE Office and the Appeals Committee on the rest day (28 September 2006). Therefore the protests are not even relevant and should have been rejected by the Appeals Committee immediately.
Clause 3.18.3., Schedule 2 of the contract:
After the World Chess Championship Committee agrees with the Organizers on the arrangements in respect of the tournament hall, facilities etc. etc. etc
., no objections from the participants shall be acceptable as long as the conditions are in accordance with the rights of the players granted in their agreements.
This clause clearly underlines the statement made in todays 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)
Nigel Davies (2006-09-30 09:07:48)
Legitimacy
This is (or should have been) the real point of these championships from FIDE's point of view. Rather than being seen as a banana republic with a paper champion their aim should have been to establish legitimacy for their cycle and organisation. FIDE established itself by taking over the World Chess Championships with the death of Alekhine. If it can no longer do that, a large part of its raison d'etre disappears, in my view.
I'm not sure they realise it yet, but if Topalov 'wins' from his 1-3 position with some trumped up accusation of cheating, their legitimacy is not enhanced. Quite the opposite in fact.
Kramnik goes home with a very strong claim to being the REAL World Champion (he beat Kasparov in a match) and having allowed FIDE to demonstrate its true colours. I think that the odds of him establishing his own cycle will have improved dramatically, he just needs a sponsor.
Nigel
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-30 23:06:46)
Suggestion...
Hi, Thibault. What about new feature - theoretical matches. Example. One [A] think - in the line white wins, another [B] - it's drawish. [A] plays 6 games with white pieces against [B]. I'm OK to wait a year or two. :D For example, I think - 6.e4 is drawish. :D :D Yes, I know. I am thinking too much. :D
Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-09-30 23:58:40)
Balance...
It is unstable balance - draw/white wins. I don't know. Aaargh. Chess is awful game.
Cirulis
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-02 15:11:16)
Kramnik plays under protest
Official statement and protest by V. Kramnik
To FIDE President H.E. Kirsan Iljumshinov
To the WCC Appeals Committee
On 2 October 2006 my manager received the following decision from FIDE:
Tomorrow, 2 October 2006, at 15.00, the 6th Game of the World Chess Championship Match a Topalov-Kramnik with the score 3:2 in favour of Kramnik, will take place.
Based on this decision I make the following statement:
I inform that I am ready to proceed playing the match by reserving all my rights. My further participation will be subject to the condition to clarify my rights regarding game five at later stage.
I do not agree with the decision made by FIDE and I formally protest against it. The decisions made on my requests, especially the resignation of the Appeals Committee, opening the toilets to the restrooms again, are chrystal clear admissions of FIDE of having taken a false decision. Logically FIDE admits herewith that it was a mistake to start game five by violating the rules and regulations of the competition and by changing the agreed playing rules and conditions during the match without my approval.
I deeply regret the unsportsmanlike and unequaled behaviour of my opponent whom FIDE donated a victory outside of the board by using dirty tricks.
High level functionaries inside FIDE once again were making the professional part of the chess world a disgraceful playground of their own interests. I strongly believe and hope that the course of these events made it obvious to everyone that drastic changes with regard to the professional management structures inside FIDE are evident.
By deciding just a couple of hours ago I had to assess between my personal interests and the interests of the entire chess world. It is very difficult to play under these circumstances. But I came to the conclusion to proceed under protest because I do not want to disappoint the overwhelming majority of the chess fans which are hoping for the unification since so many years.
I also had in mind the people of Kalmykia which are doing their utmost to organize this match on the highest level possible.
Last but not least I would like to thank very much for all the support I experienced during these days.
Elista, 2 October 2006
Vladimir Kramnik
Classical World Chess Champion
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-02 16:33:57)
Re:
Thibault, I'm sure Kramnik is continuing the match NOT mainly for the prize money, because if information I've gathered is correct, the prize money is financed from Kramnik's side. By managing to draw the 6th game, Kramnik has shown that he certainly ain't pyschologically down because of his opponent's antics. If Kramnik goes on to win the championship, the majority of the world is bound to accept him as the one true champion.
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-02 18:44:08)
Well...
I'm just a patzer, but since there are all levels of players here...
My computer is low-end for today's standards, and I use only freeware engines for cost restrains. I used about 4 different engines for analysis during my WC and Class G games, but it proved to do less difference than I expected. I was the weak link at all times in the chain, and only in the games I was able to understand why my engine showed certain moves should be made I was able to win.
But I guess you can't always blame on the patzer. I had quite a few instances that it became obvious why I couldn't understand the moves: the engine was wrong. Best way to test this is to let it run a position where it gives a slight advantage to you for 15 minutes. After that, make the moves and check if you have the same score or better. Of course it might be just my below-average computer, but the shareware version of Fruit got me into some really bad spots. The best solution I had up until now was Toga II, as it proved to be pretty solid on that aspect.
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-10-02 20:40:30)
Hi again, Thibault!
What do you think about WC article 2689? I think - it is possible refutation of Traxler counterattack. White has slow, but sure win - piece again two pawns. Refute me if I am wrong, please! (:
Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-10-03 09:32:31)
Why?
In article 2988 black wins. If Nd7 draws, and Kf8 wins - who is more useless? IMO
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-10-03 12:03:59)
Traxler is dead.... :D
I tried 7.. Qe7. White wins. See it in WC.
Waiting for improvements for black. :D
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 14:32:52)
SmartGo, Many faces of Go...
Computer Go seems to be very far from computer chess yet... (more than I thought)
Do you think a playing Go program could beat the best player in future ?
(following discussions I had with several players here :))
I've read the strongest programs could play around 8 kyu level (SmartGo, Many faces of Go). Not so bad, but I suppose it's at a blitz level, what about correspondence Go...
I train myself against gnuGO and I've been told about Kombilo, a free Go program (database), but I did not really enter it. SmartGo and Many faces of Go seem to be really good programs to learn the basics of the game.. but then ? .. Should we learn life and death structures, other things or only practice ?
Smith Dhumbumroong (2006-10-03 15:16:08)
50% ?
Hm... That's quite alot.
Like Roger said, I also don't quite understand why most people use chess engine. I mean, what's the point in winning then?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 15:28:14)
50%
The point is not always winning for sure... playing good chess or learning are others.
Some very strong players just like to try & analyse unusual openings ie.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 19:18:18)
Open letter
Another letter of support to Vladimir Kramnik, written by famous chess grandmasters... (source www.chessbase.com)
Monday 2nd of October 2006
Dear Vladimir,
Through absolutely no fault of your own, you have suffered the consequences of an unprecedented combination of unethical behaviour from your opponent and glaring incompetence, for lack of a stronger word, on the part of the Appeals Committee.
In spite of evidently unfair treatment, which has not only resulted in your being forfeited one game, but also being subjected to petty attacks and ridiculous accusations from the opposing camp, you have agreed to continue the match for the sake of reunifying the chess world. This is a very impressive decision. It testifies to your remarkable sense of honour and is worthy of your true status of World Champion.
Regardless of the final result of this match you have earned the deepest respect of your fellow Grandmasters and colleagues as well as countless chess fans around the world. Thank you for being a model sportsman in a time and place where so many circumstances turned against you. You deserve to win.
With unfailing support,
GM Joel Lautier
IM Almira Skripchenko
GM Viktor Korchnoi
GM Laurent Fressinet
GM Nigel Short
GM Alexandra Kosteniuk
GM Pavel Tregubov
GM Pentala Harikrishna
GM Yannick Pelletier
WGM Sophie Milliet
GM Lev Alburt
WIM Anna Hahn
GM Rustam Dautov
GM Yasser Seirawan
GM Emanuel Berg
GM Helmut Pfleger
WIM Olena Boytsun
GM Vladimir Barksij
GM Bartlomiej Macieja
IM Maxim Notkin
GM Alexander Baburin
GM Tony Kosten
GM Alexander Khalifman
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-10-03 20:38:37)
... dead :D
Hi, Thibault. I looked at your 7.. Qe7 and 8.. Qf4 line. It looks like white wins. :D
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-03 22:12:17)
Traxler
I see no winning line... At most an unclear advantage for White.
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qe7 8.Nxh8 Qg5+ 9.Kxe4 Qf4+ 10.Kd3 d5 11.Bxd5 Bf5+ 12.Ke2 Nd4+ 13.Ke1 Nxc2+ 14.Qxc2 Bxc2 15.Bxb7 Rb8 16.Bc6+ Ke7 17.Nc3 Qh4+ 18.g3 Qd4
...then ?
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-10-03 22:53:33)
... dead!
IMO advantage is 100% enough for win in both variation, at least for me (+engine :D). (It is sad that I don't have money (enough) - I could offer you a bet.) :D
P.S. Question not about Traxler - how do you make empty lines in messages?
Marcin Kasperski (2006-10-04 12:27:12)
Exaggerating?
I googled this thread accidentally, and ... I would like to say that some opinions here seem to be going too far.
I am just an amateur player (no FIDE rating, but according to my results on FICS and Playchess I would estimate myself about elo 1900). I play on a few servers including gameknot (my nick there is Mekk). I have never used chess engine there (or anywhere), and I am at the moment rated 1654 on gameknot, I also happened to win and draw some games against 17xx rated players. Surely they were not using engines, if they were, I would lost those games - my results on IECG (where I lost everything I tried to play) show this clearly.
Of course my claim, that I am not using an engine, is just my claim - but you can take a look at my games, if you like...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-04 16:21:00)
Danailov accuses Kramnik of using Fritz9
The manager of Topalov (Silvio Danailov) now accuses Kramnik of cheating, using Fritz 9.
Here are his statistics :
Game 1 :
From 75 moves: After move 12, from 65 remaining moves 41 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (63% of matches)
Game 2 :
From 63 moves: After move 17, from 46 remaining moves 40 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (87% of matches)
Game 3 :
From 38 moves: After move 10, from 46 remaining moves 40 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (87% of matches)
Game 4 :
From 54 moves: After move 14, from 40 remaining moves 30 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (75% of matches)
Game 6 :
From 31 moves: After move 13, from 18 remaining moves 14 moves match with the first line of Fritz 9. (78% of matches)
Out of 5 games, 78% of Vladimir Kramniks moves would match with the first line of Fritz 9.
Seems to be a lot but is it enough ? (no IMO, and it simply doesn't mean anything at all...)
Furthermore, it seems to be very hard to prove, as the "first line" of Fritz 9 depends on many parameters... It's probably easy to obtain this result on demand, or to say at a 2800 level, if it doesn't match with Fritz moves, that it matches with Shredder, Junior or Hydra or... :(
The only conclusion is Kramnik's style is closer to Fritz than other engines..
(what a scoop...)
Topalov's team has probably no other choice now than to attack & attack until death... This is clearly psychological attack, this match could end really dirty :/
I think these statistics are really too conclusive so that it's realistic ! .. Kramnik is not stupid : There's no need to play Fritz first line to win against Topalov (and finally be accused of using Fritz 9), and it's certainly not the best way to win either...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-06 11:59:22)
Topalov wins game 8
Vladimir Kramnik - Veselin Topalov (game 8)
1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 Nbd7 6. Bd3 dxc4 7. Bxc4 b5 8.
Be2 Bb7 9. O-O b4 10. Na4 c5 11. dxc5 Nxc5 12. Bb5+ Ncd7 13. Ne5 Qc7 14.
Qd4 Rd8 15. Bd2 Qa5 16. Bc6 Be7 17. Rfc1 Bxc6 18. Nxc6 Qxa4 19. Nxd8 Bxd8
20. Qxb4 Qxb4 21. Bxb4 Nd5 22. Bd6 f5 23. Rc8 N5b6 24. Rc6 Be7 25. Rd1 Kf7
26. Rc7 Ra8 27. Rb7 Ke8 28. Bxe7 Kxe7 29. Rc1 a5 30. Rc6 Nd5 31. h4 h6 32.
a4 g5 33. hxg5 hxg5 34. Kf1 g4 35. Ke2 N5f6 36. b3 Ne8 37. f3 g3 38. Rc1
Nef6 39. f4 Kd6 40. Kf3 Nd5 41. Kxg3 Nc5 42. Rg7 Rb8 43. Ra7 Rg8+ 44. Kf3
Ne4 45. Ra6+ Ke7 46. Rxa5 Rg3+ 47. Ke2 Rxe3+ 48. Kf1 Rxb3 49. Ra7+ Kf6 50.
Ra8 Nxf4 51. Ra1 Rb2 52. a5 Rf2+ 0-1
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 :)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-07 16:45:18)
Kramnik loses 9th game too.......
Kramnik loses another game in quick succession with the Black pieces this time. His 10th move of ....., dxc4?! was anti-positional, allowing White to expand in the centre with the Bishop pair backing it. Aftre some more mistakes, White broke through the f file by aiming at the weak f7 square.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-10-04 22:31:46)
engine use
I believe a player should be stronger than an engine
(in terms of positional understanding) to get a feeling
of where the centre of gravity (of the analysis) should go
to have a "win".
If left alone/by themselves, the engines would make very stupid things,
that's why they are in severe need to be told what opening
to choose, eventually what line, and in the line, what
series of moves -so called "plan". The difference in strength
-given that engines are now public/free and very strong-
lies in the difference in playing skill between players, if
not in the computer power owned by them, in my opinion.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-10-04 22:36:44)
Toga
Since everyone is being honest in this thread here is my
confession..
Usually I use latest Toga, I bought Rybka 1.2 series, but I've
found it is not better than Toga, especially if run in
a slow computer (I still use a AMD +1600, with Windows 98:
I know I should buy a better computer but this one is already a recent
"upgrade" from a Pentium 700Mhz running Fritz 8 ;) and I dont
want to fall in the endless (and costly) chain of keeping -up-to-date
just to get a few more ELO points ;)
Sometimes I test the positions with other engines (Fritz 8,
Schredder 8, free Fruit) just to prove how right was Toga in the initial
evaluation. In those rare but happy occasions when I make my own input
is simply to give an idea of where should the engine "think".
When things go well, after some point, it is just a matter of
setting the engines on my opponents, they would finish the job.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-10-04 22:50:34)
How many people actually use chessengine
I do, and I cannot even understand why some feel it is not fair : it is explicitly allowed here.
My feeling is that most (if not all) my opponents do use them also.
And this is perfectly OK for me. For several reasons :
1. I prefer not to have worked hard on a game and then win it because a sudden tactical error leads to a premature end after months of intense struggle.
2. I am far from being able on my own forces to have such interesting games as those that I play with help of engines.
3. Being on almost the same basis of computer help as my opponents, I feel that the human touch is clearly decisive in these computer-assisted correspondence games : it's precisely there that the difference can be made.
Marc
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-05 11:42:35)
Re:
Basically, I'm playing to force myself to learn. In July, when I began my first game in FICGS, I knew nothing and had nobody to teach me. Since the probabilities of me ever having a tutor are dim, I knew I had to learn alone.
FICS won't cut it, because the guys at my level generally memorize a line and go for it until the bitter end. Having no opening knowledge I would generally end up in a bad spot until the midgame, where I can handle myself better. I rarely got past move 15 there.
OTB won't do for me, because I don't even know if there's a chess club in my city. I had a neighbor that used to play with me, but I quickly got past him on knowledge.
Studying database games is just not my style. I can't get drawn into the game if I'm not playing. If I choose the bad move I have to feel threatened by it, it has to have a consequence to me.
Thus, I'm here at FICGS. Before every move I'm able to analyze it and how the line goes forward, to understand why it is a good move. Plus, I'm able to test the moves that come to my head and check them (generally to find out they are outright suicidal).
In the end, I think my opponent wins something back, which is an entertaining and hopefully instructive game.
P.S.: BTW, just so you know, I play clean on FICS and OTB. I think those are, after some time at FICGS, becoming instructive environments on their own right.
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-10-05 19:58:41)
To Miguel Pires.
It is nice position. Thanks!
After 17.Bxh6 gxh6 18.Qxh6 white easy win, no doubts.
But black has another move, much better, - 17.. d5. After it white wins, too. But now it is harder to win.
I found only one way for white to win after 17.. d5.
P.S. If we move queen from c7 to d8 in the position, then the sacrifice don't work.
Again - thanks for the nice position. Cirulis
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-08 16:42:04)
Kramnik wins ultra sharp 10th game
Kram. won the 10th game just now. It was a very sharp, complicated game. A real tactical melee! Top. resigned as he was exchange down in an ending.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-08 17:36:39)
Kramnik wins Game 10
Vladimir Kramnik - Veselin Topalov (game 10)
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nf3 d5 4.g3 Bb4+ 5.Bd2 Be7 6.Bg2 0-0 7.0-0 c6 8.Bf4 Nbd7 9.Qc2 a5 10.Rd1 Nh5 11.Bc1 b5 12.cxd5 cxd5 13.e4 dxe4 14.Qxe4 Rb8 15.Qe2 Nhf6 16.Bf4 Rb6 17.Ne5 Nd5 18.Bxd5 exd5 19.Nc3 Nf6 20.Nxb5 Ba6 21.a4 Ne4 22.Rdc1 Qe8 23.Rc7 Bd8 24.Ra7 f6 25.Nd7 Rf7 26.Nxb6 Rxa7 27.Nxd5 Rd7 28.Ndc3 Rxd4 29.Re1 f5 30.Qc2 Rb4 31.Nd5 Rxb5 32.axb5 Qxb5 33.Nc7 Qc4 34.Qd1 Bxc7 35.Qd7 h6 36.Qxc7 Qb4 37.Qb8+ Qxb8 38.Bxb8 Nd2 39.Ra1 g5 40.f4 Nb3 41.Ra3 Bc4 42.Bc7 g4 43.Bxa5 1-0
Yannick Maret (2006-10-09 09:39:01)
A question about chess engines
At first I was against using engines but the opinions given in another thread made me believe that they might be an useful teaching mean.
So I'm starting to think about using a chess engine here... but just to check if the moves I chose spring any tactical opportunities for my opponent! Following the suggestions of the engine would just remove the fun of the game for me.
Anybody has an idea on how to do that easily, and what engine to use? I would like a method that avoid the temptation of playing moves suggested by the engine!
Thanks in advance,
Yannick
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-09 11:19:53)
UCI / Winboard engine
Hello Yannick.
Maybe you could try a free chess engine like Crafty (quite strong already, also running on Chessbase / Fritz interface), GNUchess, Arasan, Ghost or any engine running on Winboard / Arena free interfaces...
See a list of chess engines here :
http://www.ficgs.com/wiki_en-chess_engines.html
A well-known french speaking website about computer chess :
http://perso.orange.fr/lefouduroi/computerchess.htm
Actually it's probably very hard not to be influenced by chess engines suggestions, but the point is to understand, then find better moves...
All depends on the level you want the engine to play. There are hundred of engines to download...
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-10 18:37:31)
g11
Is it my impression or Kramnik wimped out of a rook exchange by 60...Ra5 and missed a good position with a passed pawn?
Most of the people should know my low degree of skill by now, so I'm just asking for help here to understand this. Why was so important for him to keep his Rook on the board over real winning chances?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-10 18:49:31)
Re: g11
With bishops on opposite colors, it's advised to keep a rook on each side to avoid a draw... Anyway, it seems to be a clear draw in all cases here.
If Kramnik doesn't win game 12, another battle will begin...
Rodrigo Jaroszewski (2006-10-10 19:18:09)
Hmmm
Even with a pawn up, Thibault? I mean, after 60...Bb6 61.Rxe5 fxe5, White being uncapable of threatening both Black pawns or moving his King towards either Black's passed pawn or his own pawn... Of course, it might come to a lock later on, but it does seem more promising than allowing the Rooks to stay.
However, you did give me the answer to my question. Thanks!
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-10-11 07:04:35)
Pairings:
cyrano (still waitimg on name) vs. Glen D.Shields*****cairo (ottesen_soren) vs. Miguel Pires*****ccmcacollister (collister_craig) vs. Benjamin Aldag*****thumper (jacobs_doug) vs. James Stripes*****tugger (edwards_matthew) vs. Trond Michalsen*****yanm (maret_yannick) vs. Peter Willoughby*****taikaviitta (koivuniemi_raimo) vs. Richard Grady*****tag1153 (gilbreath_thomas) vs. Regis Ducreux*****eqj2 (johnson_eddie) vs. Martin Selby*****dewillget8 (bingham_anthony) vs. Ilmars Cirulis*****mozz (price_richard) vs. Julien Baudement*****lofix (mankowski_peter) vs. Phil Cook.***********************************************************That's a 12 vs. 12 match. 24 points possible. First team to 12.5 wins. Are we in agreement? - Thomas
Dinesh De Silva (2006-10-13 14:57:27)
Kram. Wins Tie Break Game No. 2
Kram. (White) strategically outplayed Top. (Black) in tie break game no. 2 in 45 moves just now. After Top. conceded the bishop pair, he was forced on the backfoot in an ending, and went down a bishop for just two pawns, at which point he resigned.
Elmer Valderrama (2006-10-20 21:55:18)
retrograde analysis
from math.harvard.edu
"Legal position (n.): a position that can be reached from the initial array by game consisting entirely of legal moves, however bizarre. Conventionally every chess problem should have a legal position. Naturally then, an illegal position is a position that cannot be reached by a legal game. For instance, a position in which one side has more than 8 pawns, or has both White and Black Kings in check, is illegal (why?). So is any position with a White Bishop on h1 and White pawn on g2 (why?), such as the following mutual Zugzwang (q.v.), which Lewis Stiller discovered in the course of an exhaustive computer search: White Kg6, Bh1, Pg2; Black Kg4, Pg3. The Kniest position White Kc8,Pb6; Black Ka8,Pa7 (seen above under Helpmate) is legal BTM, but not WTM since Black is in ``retro-stalemate'': Black could not have made a legal move to reach this position. [Thus this position can be set as a Helpmate in Two but not a Mate in One (or ``helpmate in 0.5'').] There are positions that can be recognized as illegal only after extensive retrograde analysis. To prove that a position is legal, one need only exhibit a single legal game reaching the position; such a game is called a proof game. Some retrograde analysis may still be needed to construct a proof game."
I bet nowadays there exist a problem solving chess engine which can give such a 'proof game' in 0.0001milisec (as the moves maybe bizarre, no need to evaluate positions, just to check them for legality)
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 (2006-10-23 18:00:29)
Rating / 8-game match
Hello Wolfgang. (FICGS, not FICS ;))
In these 1st FICGS WCH quarter finals, there were 2 forfeit cases & 1 match with 6 games out of 8 lost on time. In the first 2 cases, not all games were rated as a win (according to the 8-game match rule), the last case was a bit different but as far as I remember, the winner had a better position (winning or small advantage) in all games... Anyway, ratings wouldn't change significantly if 2 wins were not rated.
The real question is about 8-game matchs & fast time control 30 days + 1 day / move (quite hard). There's no perfect rule & particular cases could happen, but that's really interesting IMO & the number of games with rapid time controls are probably enough to balance ratings in time. We'll see...
Anyway, several players were surprised by the difficulty of this time control, I hope it won't happen again during the next cycle (that should start in january)...
Peter Schuster (2006-10-24 12:57:17)
Rating / 8-game-match
Hallo Wolfgang,
ich fuehle mich durch Deinen Beitrag angesprochen. Alle meine Spiele sollten fuer das Rating gewertet werden. Dass SF Cinca ein sehr unangenehmer Mensch (ich hatte leider in einem GM-Normturnier schon mal mit Ihm zu tun) und aeusserst unsportlicher Gegner ist, kann nicht mir angelastet werden. Nach 2 Remis stand ich in 2 weitern Partien klar auf Gewinn und haette keines der restlichen Spiele verloren. Als er das eingesehen hat, hat er einfach aufgehoehrt zu ziehen und seine Zeit ablaufen lassen. Ich hoffe, dass solche Unsportlichkeit auch entsprechend bestraft wird.
Viele Gruesse
Peter
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! Well invite Vassily Vassilyevich Smyslov, Spassky, Fischer, Karpov, Kasparov, Khalifman, Kasimdzhanov, Topalov, Anand, Ponomariov
It is going to be a good supertournament!
Misha Savinov : In Elista?
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov : In Elista. And, probably, it will be 25-minute games, double round-robin. I wonder if Fischer accepts the invitation, what do you think? We will announce the winner a superabsolute champion (laughs)!
Misha Savinov :
One can call it an open championship of Kalmykia
Kirsan Ilyumzhinov :
Are you suggesting inviting the Kalmyk champion of 1978? I think I could play 25-minute games
.....
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-25 12:32:12)
Rating / 8-game match
Hello Farit,
the problem with rating of contests by duels is a generally: If one player knows that the whole duel is no to win he will abandon all games - independent from the particular situation in all of the open games!
Greetings, Wolfgang
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 ? ;)
Don Burden (2006-10-26 02:32:25)
Rating / 8-game-match
Seems to me that the large jump in ratings is the result of a problem, where the root problem seems to be that there are just way too many players on here that for whatever reason just drop out and don't want to finish their games. Don't know how you would fix that.
In my WCH Stage 1 section that I just finished, two of the top 3 rated players in my section both gave up and quit. One player without playing a single move. The rules say that in the case of tied scores, only the higher rated player advances. There are two players in my section, myself and another, both finishing with 5.5 points out of 6. I think that's a pretty good score, but apparently it's not good enough because only one advances. If all 7 players had played all games to completion, the chances of having a clear winner, and a final score somewhat lower than 5.5 out of 6 would have been much greater.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-26 15:20:20)
Re: Rating / 8-game-match
That's not right.
These quarter finals are particular cases because there were no forfeit before move 10 in all games... (games with less than 10 moves played are not rated for the winner) That's why there's a special rule 'general forfeit' for 8+ games matches.
Moreover, the waiting list for the 1st FICGS WCH remained open from april to july, maybe it was a too long period, that's why the waiting list for the 2nd FICGS WCH (that could begin in january) is still closed.
Glen D. Shields (2006-10-26 16:21:03)
It's Been Awhile ....
This tournament is the first time in awhile since I played on the Gameknot server. A lot has changed in server chess during my absence, but not at GameKnot.
There are two GK annoyances. I point them out NOT to trash GK, it's a well designed chess server, but hope that someone from GK who is following this match can instigate appropriate modifications.
I REALLY wish the e-mail notification indicating my opponent has moved would show his move. I have a lot of on-going games and don't have the time to make an extra log-on to GK just to get my opponent's move.
Also for those who use Opera, take note GK does not work (at least not for me). The board consistently shows up minus half the pieces. Refreshing the screen helps sometimes, but not always.
An extra log-in with my non-favorite browsers is not particularly endearing :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-10-28 15:59:37)
Chess quizz :-)
I see the interview (1) was also published on Chessbase news..
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3454
Some other questions...
3/ Will Kasparov return at competitive chess ?
4/ Will Kramnik defend his new FIDE title ?
5/ How many years Kirsan Iljumzhinov will still remain FIDE president ?
6/ Will Fritz 10 beat Kramnik ??
7/ Will chess be solved by a super computer in the next 200 years ?
8/ Who will win the 1st FICGS world championship ? :)
... my answers :
2/ Boris Spassky
3/ Yes !
4/ No
5/ 8 years
6/ No
7/ No
8/ Joker :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-10-28 17:32:08)
Chess quizz :-)
8) Peter Schuster will win the first FICGS-World Championchip! He's playing the most variable chess and his opening repertoire is the largest.
Hannes Rada (2006-10-30 17:56:49)
Member No. 1000 !!
Thibault, Congratulation to the 1000th FICGS - member !!
.
As far as I know chessfriend had 1900 members after 3 years.
.
I am quite sure that FICGS is the fastest growing chess organization on the web.
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 09:50:28)
Red mark + Message
Graham, really ? Please note the red mark is only displayed on the 'move' page, when you're to play a move. (not in the viewer page ie.)
Sebastian, that's quite right, messages may be forgotten on the 'move' page... But I thought it would be hard not to see it on the 'move_confirm' (cf. url) page, above the 'send' button... That's a problem to displace the board at the bottom IMO :/ And a popup window wouldn't be appreciated... I have no better idea at this time.
Thanks for feedback.
Don Burden (2006-11-03 14:20:07)
Only 965 ?!
I noticed it too. It was the rating list page. It's back showing over 1000 now, but it definitely was showing under 1000 players for a few days. I think it was the 1st and 2nd of this month.
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-12 13:42:38)
White to move!
Is there a way to win for White and if it is - which could be the only move to realize this?
ChessPosition (see diagram)
Black's last move has been 49...Qa7. Has there been any better move for Black?
Have attention to the proposals of your chess engines!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 15:00:01)
Chess problem
Interesting chess problem...
The first move seems quite easy to find, knowing only one move wins & considering bishop and knight, but proving it is not obvious... maybe I'm wrong (my first idea was h5)... Anyway, chess engines are lost here, it seems Hiarcs is the only one finding h5.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 17:46:57)
Black to move!
Ok, that's quite funny I didn't consider the most natural move because it's a chess problem :) .. g5 is also chosen by most engines quite quickly.
Anyway, the win is still to prove. I'll try some lines in wikichess.
Note : A new feed (RSS) will be available for wikichess very soon.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-12 20:03:22)
Nice endgame
Really hard. This is not a clear win (still not sure it is)... :)
Arthur Alfred Macarsindale (2006-11-14 13:22:07)
Story Of Life and Chess
Often closer linked than people may think! Ask me anything you feel you want to please.Chess or otherwise.I can only answer or not answer!
I was taught chess by a relative who was a rather fine player when I was aged 9 in 1921. He died when I was 12 years old and so I lost a playing partner. I was married in 1932 and, seeing the ghastly goings-on in Germany in 1930s knowing that the whole show was starting again as it had in 1914 ,I vowed to ensure that a group of thugs and criminals would not be taking a foot on the shores and shires of Great Britain and bringing along some new age of butchery and lunacy . And so the RAF was my home for the next 15 years from 1938. I revisited chess principally in 1940 and that was hot summer's days outside playing cards,chess and other games waiting for the phone to ring and 'scramble'. Unfortunately two of my chaps who I played often with were shot down and killed over Kent in August 1940. I miss them both to this day.
Then I did not play for years until the advent of correspondence chess in the 1960s and 1970s through the postal mail. And since 1998 the Internet.
There you have it!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-14 15:59:48)
First chess servers
1996... the very beginning of internet. Was there another way to play chess online than FICS (not FICGS :)) through Winboard on Unix system ?!
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-15 12:23:59)
Nice endgame
I don't think so! I didn'nt found any win after: 54.fxg6?! Bxg6 55.Kg3 Qa7!
The engines are not very helpfully for solving this kind of positions!
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-15 14:23:14)
Go scorer (improvement)
Hello to all Go players.
A small improvement in the Go scorer : Komi (7.5 points) is now added to White score and the program says who 'probably' wins !
Also a small bug corrected in the count algorithm, about a few unknown points...
In example, you can score this exciting game Vorobev -Steveson :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=score&game=3102
Just remove these groups : n8 m9 g18 r18 g17
Score is 183 to 178 (+ 7.5) -> White wins by 2.5 points. (verified with a viewer)
See the game here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=3102
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-11-15 16:33:53)
Nice endgame
It is another endgame, but I didn't find any clear win with Rook+Knight+2 Pawns vs. Queen. But in the other endgame 3 Pawn vs. Bishop there is a clear winning way - complicate, but clear!
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-11-15 16:40:51)
Nice endgame, too! :)
Ok, I will look for clear win!
For me that endgame is easier than another one. Here black has only one piece instead of two. :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-15 16:41:25)
Out of topic :)
Ilmars, it is no worth finding another way to win for White :) .. Please help me to save the Black position after 50.g5! .. that's real challenge !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-16 23:48:55)
Nice endgame
Hello Wolfgang.
No need to play it anymore..... g5 ! wins.
But is it the only winning move... That's another study. Actually, this game looks like numerous high-level correspondence chess wins, "winning" moves are quite natural & clear and it may be very hard to know the first loosing move (which is always unique). Not very spectacular, but very technical & instructive. Thanks :)
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.
Mikhail Ruzin (2006-11-19 09:22:47)
Rating change (Go)
Hello Thibault.
It is not normal!
My initial raring was 1800.
Then I lost the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT__000008 against a player rated 1900 and my rating changed to 1780. It is normal.
But then I win the rated game in FICGS__GO__TOURNAMENT_DAN__000001 against a player rated 1600 and my rating changed to 1752. It is not normal.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-19 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.
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...
Miguel Pires (2006-11-19 22:20:57)
Match FICGS vs GameKnot
I draw my GK game with Cairo. I hoppe i can win in FICGS, but...
Regard's
Miguel Pires
Miguel Pires (2006-11-19 22:22:46)
WCH qualifications
I've a question: Me and my opponent have win this group, both are going to the next fase? (i hoppe so)
Regard's
Miguel Pires
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 00:10:19)
WCH qualifications
Hi Miguel.
I'm afraid not :( ... I understand this is quite disappointing but I'm sure these rules that favorise ratings combined to the WCH rhythm (a new cycle every 6 months) give chances to everyone. The idea is statistical, your rating will increase so you will have more chances during the next cycle, and your opponent has more chances to win 2nd stage.
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 players 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 players 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 players 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 FICGSs one but in IECGs 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 FICGSs case in order to maintain a meaningful activity.
My belief is that the centaur mode will prove in time to generate stronger games, stronger chess and FICGS will have chances to become in time the most relevant correspondence chess server. The technical conditions are already met.
Marius
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-20 16:20:17)
Wikichess
Wikichess is a chess tree, you can go forward or back just by following the links - moves or 'back', then enter new moves...
When you browse Wikichess in contributor mode (when logged in), your name is automatically added but it will be recorded only if you submit the commentary. It's all explained on the wikichess page ;)
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 :-))
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
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
Peter Eizenhammer (2006-11-23 16:00:42)
No information and too ambitious
Visiting the homepage one can read some/few lines and is told that anyone4chess is going to "create the rules of chess" (sic!) and wants to be a "chess entity" "following the example of Fide". Wow, very ambitious. Thinking about it I am not so sure if people would be impressed if I told them that I am a GM created by anyone, ah Anyone.
Really, these creative some lines full of hubris could not convince me to register, sorry.
Peter
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-24 01:16:50)
dreams are not reality...
Elmer, let me dream a few days more, please :)
If the match is not 'arranged', everything can happen. I'm sure Kramnik can win 1 game or 2, and draw the other ones...
Chess engines have nothing more to prove, a win for Kramnik would give new interest for the match Kramnik vs. Fritz 12, a draw would be a non-event and a loss for Kramnik would be interpreted as "Chess is completely dead"... Not so good for Chessbase... Choose.
But finally, if Bobby was right ? :) .. (sure not)
Wayne Lowrance (2006-11-24 06:44:37)
Kramnik vs. Deep Fritz, 2006
My two cents. I have little interest in this match. It is no longer any doubt wheather the programs are stronger than the Human. The playing field for this match is not even,. Kramnik has secured far too much of an advantage based on the rules of the match. He will play just well enough to secure a draw, or even perhaps push to a 31/2-21/2 win. After all gotta keep up the suspense for the next big payday cow.
Anyways Fritz is not the strongest Engine
I believe Human-Program matches should be played without handicap for the program. Then we know who is champs.
so now in my view I already know.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-26 12:51:03)
Game 1
Vladimir Kramnik - Deep Fritz
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.g3 d5 4.Bg2 dxc4 5.Qa4+ Nbd7 6.Qxc4 a6 7.Qd3 c5 8.dxc5 Bxc5 9.Nf3 0-0 10.0-0 Qe7 11.Nc3 b6 12.Ne4 Nxe4 13.Qxe4 Nf6 14.Qh4 Bb7 15.Bg5 Rfd8 16.Bxf6 Qxf6 17.Qxf6 gxf6 18.Rfd1 Kf8 19.Ne1 Bxg2 20.Kxg2 f5 21.Rxd8+ Rxd8 22.Nd3 Bd4 23.Rc1 e5 24.Rc2 Rd5 25.Nb4 Rb5 26.Nxa6 Rxb2 27.Rxb2 Bxb2 28.Nb4 Kg7 29.Nd5 Bd4 30.a4 Bc5 31.h3 f6 32.f3 Kg6 33.e4 h5 34.g4 hxg4 35.hxg4 fxe4 36.fxe4 Kg5 37.Kf3 Kg6 38.Ke2 Kg5 39.Kd3 Bg1 40.Kc4 Bf2 41.Kb5 Kxg4 42.Nxf6+ Kf3 43.Kc6 Bh4 44.Nd7 Kxe4 45.Kxb6 Bf2+ 46.Kc6 Be1 47.Nxe5 Ŋ-Ŋ
Does Kramnik really hope to win the match in a struggle, just wait for a bug or only manage a draw more... Waiting for the 2nd game.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-27 18:13:06)
Game 1 : Kramnik misses a win
GM Yasser Seirawan posted an article on Chessbase, explaining how Vladimir Kramnik missed the win against Deep Fritz in game 1 :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3508
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-28 13:38:30)
FICGS chat !
Hello to all.
You probably noticed this new window on the right... :)
This is a chat window, here you can write to everyone in the international chat, and to people from your country only (in your own language !). You can moderate the messages by clicking on the arrow just before each message (please use it with moderation)...
Question is : Should it be permanent or not ??
Two ways :
1. It could appear only from time to time...
2. There should be a way to close the window during the session.
Feel free to tell me if you encounter any problem... Thanks for feedback !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-11-28 16:24:12)
Improvements
I just added 2 features on the chat window :
Now you can close it by clicking the arrow just before 'International chat'
Now you can refresh the messages by clicking on 'International chat'
Daniel Khayman (2006-11-29 22:44:59)
chat feature
hi there; is there a way to type more than only a few words on the chat window? if not, it should definitely be implemented. thanks, regards.
Jaimie Wilson (2006-11-30 15:14:36)
Game 3
I could be wrong, but I suspect fritz thought he had a clear advantage when the draw was agreed. My fritz 9 said something like -1 although even I would have fancied my drawing chances in the final position (maybe overoptimistically against a 2800 rated comp :) ).
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 :/
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 04:30:34)
Game 4
Deep Fritz - Vladimir Kramnik
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nf6 3. d4 Nxe4 4. Bd3 d5 5. Nxe5 Nd7 6. Nxd7 Bxd7 7. O-O Bd6 8.
Qh5 Qf6 9. Nc3 Qxd4 10. Nxd5 Bc6 11. Ne3 g6 12. Qh3 Ng5 13. Qg4 Qf4 14. Qxf4
Bxf4 15. Nc4 Ne6 16. Bxf4 Nxf4 17. Rfe1+ Kf8 18. Bf1 Bb5 19. a4 Ba6 20. b4 Bxc4 21. Bxc4 Rd8 22. Re4 Nh5 23. Rae1 Rd7 24. h3 Ng7 25. Re5 Nf5 26. Bb5 c6 27. Bd3 Nd6 28. g4 Kg7 29. f4 Rhd8 30. Kg2 Nc8 31. a5 Rd4 32. R5e4 Kf8 33. Kf3 h6 34. Rxd4 Rxd4 35. Re4 Rd6 36. Ke3 g5 37. Rd4 Ke7 38. c4 Rxd4 39. Kxd4 gxf4 40. Ke4 Kf6 41. Kxf4 Ne7 42. Be4 b6 43. c5 bxc5 44. bxc5 Ng6+ 45. Ke3 Ne7 46. Kd4 Ke6 47. Bf3 f5 48. Bd1 Kf6 49. Bc2 fxg4 50. hxg4 Ke6 51. Bb1 Kf6 52. Be4 Ke6 53.Bh1 Kf6 54. Bf3 Ke6 1/2-1/2
... I really wonder if Kramnik played this Petroff defense with any hope to win.
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-02 09:54:32)
A lone engine in CC :-)
Suppose I make the following test (it has certainily be proposed before, but let's do it again, for the fun of the argument):
- I buy a recent engine (say the new Fritz10)
- I play in some CC tournaments (I do not want to pay fees, so let's say, here at FICGS of course :-), and at iecg)
- I choose the first moves of all my games based on some statistics made on a CC base (just to avoid some openings statistically bad in CC)
- starting from a few moves before the engine goes out of its opening book (to be defined, maybe 4 moves) I let my average computer run 10 hours by move (around one night per move... I know, I sleep too much :-)
- I *always* play the very move the engine finds as best
- I play as many tournaments as I can, considering the time constraint that limits the number of games (just to get a meaningful rating as fast as possible)
Now, what rating do you think I can reach at most, strictly following these guidelines?
(note that if I know some basic maths to do the stats, I do not even have to know chess rules... although a basic knowledge is assumed to ease the play in practice)
Are you ready to bet on your guess ? :-)
In pratice, the test does not work, because the tester dies from boredom long before he gets any rating :-))
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-02 13:40:46)
Chess engines CC ratings
It is my estimation. 3 out of 4 represents about 200 elo points. I doubt Chessbase will organize a Man(+Machine) vs. Machine correspondence chess match... However there are a few examples : Arno Nickel - Hydra (2,5-0,5), Hydra which beat Adams over the board 5,5-0,5 ... And I suppose Arno Nickel did not have access to the program, but knowing better his opponent I'm sure it's possible to reach such a score against any program.
About your test, it's been discussed here already :) .. In my opinion such a player's rating would travel between 2200 and 2400 (at most) mark !
Waiting for a match against Rykba :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-04 01:27:44)
Reminds me something...
Ok, now I'm afraid conditions are 'ok' so that Kramnik looses this match...
Let's say game 6 is a draw, Deep Fritz 10 wins the match by score 3,5-2,5 first program on a normal computer to beat a world champion. Great...
However Vladimir Kramnik can be satisfied of his performance, he obtained a completely winning position and didn't really loose any game. He just gave his opponent a full point in a draw position.
Honor is safe, everyone wins. Like the song, what a wonderful world :)
Don Groves (2006-12-04 05:25:01)
Intuition
A good definition of intuition is the immediate knowing of something without the conscious use of reasoning. This leads to two observations:
(1) Computers cannot do anything without reasoning (programming) and thus cannot act intuitively.
(2) Intuition can be trained by practice. The more intimately we are familiar with anything (say a game), the more likely our first impression (immediate knowing) will be correct.
So, I think intuition gained through experience plays a large role and an intuitive player can go far in Chess or Go. At some point, however, one must become a good analyst to progress further.
I would be interested in opinions about how far in each game (elo rating) a purely intuitive player might progress.
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
Elmer Valderrama (2006-12-04 14:32:04)
Deepy, the drawing monster
Now it's clear why CB was willing to pay 1 million if defeated: with Deep Jok..uh.. Fritz, they have created a drawing monster!!
At least it comes with a 1/2-point Life Guarantee
8-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-06 00:05:33)
Deep Fritz 10
... wins the match 4-2
It's a shock (even if Kramnik said it and repeated - deeeep fritz is favorite). It's hard to explain such a result.
Deep Fritz - Vladimir Kramnik
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bc4 e6 7.0-0 Be7 8.Bb3 Qc7 9.Re1 Nc6 10.Re3 0-0 11.Rg3 Kh8 12.Nxc6 bxc6 13.Qe2 a5 14.Bg5 Ba6 15.Qf3 Rab8 16.Re1 c5 17.Bf4 Qb7 18.Bc1 Ng8 19.Nb1 Bf6 20.c3 g6 21.Na3 Qc6 22.Rh3 Bg7 23.Qg3 a4 24.Bc2 Rb6 25.e5 dxe5 26.Rxe5 Nf6 27.Qh4 Qb7 28.Re1 h5 29.Rf3 Nh7 30.Qxa4 Qc6 31.Qxc6 Rxc6 32.Ba4 Rb6 33.b3 Kg8 34.c4 Rd8 35.Nb5 Bb7 36.Rfe3 Bh6 37.Re5 Bxc1 38.Rxc1 Rc6 39.Nc3 Rc7 40.Bb5 Nf8 41.Na4 Rdc8 42.Rd1 Kg7 43.Rd6 f6 44.Re2 e5 45.Red2 g5 46.Nb6 Rb8 47.a4 1-0
It seems to me it was allowed to Kramnik to consult Fritz opening book, so first why to play 8. ...Qc7 !?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-06 10:53:56)
Scrabble
Why not a scrabble (thinking about that) where all letters are out and ordered before the start of the game ? .. No chancy factor at all, like chess the game is determined. It could be a very deep tactical & memory game, knowing letters of your opponent in advance, depending on your own words... Many interesting combinations, don't you think ?
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-06 22:53:58)
Very surprised
F10 4-2, simply amazing and unbelievable. I will never put faith in any of these chessbase promotional matches.
With the advantages (various) that Kas had and given his chess stature this result cannot be trusted.
F10 is a great program for sure but should not have been able to win 4-2.
My two cents
Wayne
Thomas Gilbreath (2006-12-06 23:11:19)
Scoring update
id=cyrano vs. id=gdshields (both games in progress)
id=cairo vs. id=miguel_pires (.5/.5 - game in progress)
id=ccmacollister vs. Benjamin Aldag (2/0)
id=thumper vs. id=wulebgr (both games in progress)
id=yanm vs. id=pedrinho (1.5/.5)
id=taikaviitta vs. id=richgra64 (both games in progress)
id=tag1153 vs. id=macounet (2/0)
id=dewillget8 vs. id=ilmarscirulis (1/0 - game in progress)
id=mozz vs. id=lejuju (1/0 - game in progress)
id=lofix vs. id=cnile (0/1 - game in progress)
id=tugger vs. id=kolarz (0/1) - game in progress)
id=eqj2 vs. id=errantknight (0/1 - game in progress)
The current score stands at id=GameKnot ----- 8, id=FICGS -----3. Please remember that 12.5 points are needed for the win. Contact me should there be any corrections........
Thomas
Don Groves (2006-12-07 09:01:45)
Scrabble
Thibault, I like this idea! It would be a very complex game and require not only good offensive ability (knowing lots of words) but also defensive ability to stymie the other person. There would still be the luck of the draw however, unless some method were devised to divide the letters evenly in the beginning, as in chess. Like Backgammon, however, it would be a game where skill could overcome luck at times.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-12-08 23:33:16)
Figs Chat
Howdy Thibault. Like the window very much and support Daniel's input
Wayne
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-09 21:24:05)
scrabble+
Your idea for scrabble is interesting but the luck seems still there (not that luck is a problem per se IMO): even if the letters are shown, their very order is luck dependend ; and the only thing that really changes is that you can forsee the letters of your opponent and play accordingly... and so the game is actually more simple (!) IMO, more calculating prone and less strategic because you remove some possibilities, all as likely, in your move tree.
To be more concrete, suppose you can play a scrabble for, say, 75 points, and open the grid for the opponent, or play a nice glue-word for, say 40 points, but let the grid closed enough. In your proposed game, I just have to look at my opponent possibilities, as I know his letters... I calculate one, two or more moves ahead and say, ok, I can open the grid and still win by 10 points. In the normal game, I have to estimate, if the openess of the grid is worth the 35 points difference and that means calculating the rough propabilities to score points on the letters I open, considering what my opponent already played, if he seems waiting for some specific letters, or maybe he is bluffing, but then by experience I know that the double 'e' I let is not very valuable, considering that only four expensive letters remain...and so on: the game seems much more strategic and interesting for me.
Of course, I can loose because my letters are really bad... but that is quite uncommon on a whole game for good players, and almost meaningless on a match with, say, five set or more. (remember that the goal is not to make words, but to score points, or to prevent your opponent doing so on the grid, something a good player can almost always do whatever his letters).
For the chess engine, I did try some, and frankly my level in blitz play is so terrible that gnuchess is enough for me for a quick match:-). Now I tried Fruit and Hiarcs on some of my correspondence games and even on my modest scale, I was not very happy with the result: they did suggest others moves than mine, but that were moves I would never have played (maybe (surely?) I am wrong, but I am not sure)... so what would be the point to waste computer time? Even if they may suggest a good move I missed, I would still feel uneasy to play something 'outside' my own mind... old fashion maybe, but that is how I have fun in chess :-) I still like the waiting of the reply, while wondering if I made an oversight! (that being said, I used and will still use the tablebases reading engine when needed: very useful at some points :-)
But then maybe my biais against engines made me use them badly :-) Never mind, I am not going to apologize for that to a silicon piece of junk :-) And if the beast feels somehow insulted and asks for a real time match, let's just play Go!
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-12-11 10:26:41)
1.e4 e5 2.Bb5
Black has comfortable play after it.
It doesn't mean that black wins. :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2006-12-13 16:37:20)
Rybka clearly the best ?
There are many investigations of chess engines in web their resultats are showing the same like yours.
But the open questions is whether playing against other chess engines is the same like assisting human to analyze a chess position?
Dinesh De Silva (2006-12-16 05:39:02)
Re:
The DF 10 vs Kramnik game was a bit disappointing (probably because of Kramnik's shocking blunder & his loss in the last game which gave DF 10 a spiffy looking 4:2 win), but I guess the games were quite interesting to analyse.
A World Championship match every 6 months is much too soon. Maybe every 10 months might be more reasonable.
James Stripes (2006-12-16 16:19:10)
bad timing, but
World Championships should be decided by matches, nit by a tournament such as that planned in Mexico. Topalov was never a legitimate champion, but he is perhaps now a legitimate champion (and FIDE finally recognizes the legitimate champion again). If this challenge by Topalov succeeds in derailing Mexico, it will have accomplished a useful purpose.
Of course I'm lookin forward to watching the games in Mexico, and would be wholehearted in support if it were a qualifying tournament. Thus Topalov should be playing, rather than Kramnik; the winner should then challnge Kramnik with the full backing of FIDE.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-12-16 23:59:42)
Deep Junior vs. Deep Fritz
Style of play is a bit different while main program is about the same...
Hard to answer without knowing more... What is the chess program of your dreams ? :)
Jason Repa (2006-12-18 07:56:00)
new chat bar
Thanks for allowing players to remove the chat bar in their preferences. It was getting annoying having to manually remove it every time upon logging in.
Dinesh De Silva (2006-12-21 10:40:17)
Re:
A real cliffhanger! My opponent Krol is a very good player. When endings are interesting as this, correspondence chess is the ultimate winner.
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-12-24 19:29:15)
Merry Christmas, Thibault! ;)
Thanks to Thibault for big XP in Latvian and Traxler. :)
>> About Latvian gambit game:
11.0-0 is a mistake. King feels safer in centre.
11.f3 is the best white move. IMO
I am still thinking that Latvian gambit and Traxler counterattack is won for white. :D
Now I will play 5.Bxf7+ in Traxler. 5.Nxf7+ is too complex for me yet (IMO it is winning too).
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-12-26 13:03:05)
Traxler is dead ?!
Here you can see my game with Thibault:
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 Nf6 4.Ng5 Bc5 5.Nxf7 Bxf2+ 6.Kxf2 Nxe4+ 7.Ke3 Qh4
8.g3 Nxg3 9.hxg3 Qd4+ 10.Kf3 d5 11.Rh4 e4+ 12.Kg2 0-0 13.Bb3 Rxf7 14.Qg1
Qf6 15.Rf4 Qe6 16.Nc3 Qh3+ 17.Kf2 Be6 18.Nxd5 Nd4 19.Rxf7 Bxf7 20.Nf4 Qf5
21.Bxf7+ Qxf7 22.Qd1 g5 23.Qg4 Qf6 24.Kg2 Rf8 25.b3 Nxc2 26.Rb1 Ne1+ 27.Kg1
It is not finished yet. But it looks like a draw.
-- My 16th move was a mistake. Only chance to play for win is 16.d3.
-- I could make much better 14th move: 14.Rf4 with possible 14.. Rxf4 15.gxf4 Be6 16.Nc3 Rf8 17.Qh5 g6 18.Qh4.
P.S. Hi, Thibault! :D
Ilmars Cirulis (2006-12-26 13:48:40)
16.d3 looks good! :)
16.d3 Rf8 (again! :D) 17.Qg1 Qf6? 18.dxe4 and white stands very promising.
Better for black is 17.. Qxg1+ 18.Kxg1 exd3 19.cxd3 Nb4 20.d4 (20.Nc3 Nxd3 21.Nxd5 Nxc1 22.Rxc1 c6 23.Ne7+ Kf7 24.Nf5 Bxb3 25.axb3 Rd8 - draw IMO) and white have little chance to win.
I must look for something better. :)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-12-29 18:33:20)
An English translation needed......
Could any Spanish speaking player please translate the following to English? It would be much appreciated:
"Estimados amigos, A fin de evitar mayores problemas en vuestra partida, he decidido que ambos jugadores envíen copia de sus mail obligatoriamente a mi direcciķn hasta el final de la partida.
Yo recibiré esos mails y los archivaré en una carpeta especial."
Marc Lacrosse (2006-12-30 11:24:05)
translation
I am far from knowing spanish fluently but I think that this can be translated so :
"Dear friends, in view of avoiding major problems in your game, it has been decided that both players should send a copy of their mails to myself until the the end of the game. I will keep these mails in a special folder."
Marc
Francesco Laghetti (2007-01-02 14:25:39)
No winner?
Dear FICGS responsible,
I would like to know the reason that in the FICGS_CHESS_WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_09 there is no winner!
Thank you very much.
Regards,
Francesco Laghetti
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.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-01-02 16:36:42)
Re:
Hi, Marc or Elmer
I need an English translation for the following message too:
" Queria aclararle solamente que yo no había recibido el mail que esta
reenviando. Por favor, asegurese que su servidor este funcionando bien.
A partir de este momento, de no recibir alguno de vuestros mails, si despues
hay un reclamo de parte de alguno de ustedes, deberé tomar como que el
mensaje no se enviķ, cargando el tiempo perdido al jugador en falta.
Esta medida la tomaré de ahora en mas a fin de evitar inconvenientes y que
la partida finalice de la mejor manera posible.
Pasando en limpio, en caso de no tener copias de vuestros envios, deberé
decidir a favor del reclamante sin más tramite.
Saludos cordiales y Feliz Aņo Nuevo."
Francesco Laghetti (2007-01-02 17:58:03)
No winner?
Dear Thibault,
many thanks for your clear answer.
Regards,
Francesco
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-02 19:47:51)
Tournament Winners update ?
Have they been updated to current ? I dont think so.
Regards Wayne
Elmer Valderrama (2007-01-02 20:43:37)
Blitz correspondence chess
Programming problems you mean?
In a 1-game match I would gladly play Black all the time :) -provided that
if draw Black "wins" of course-
It's tricky to make a fair 1-game match;
the old proposal of giving odds to White
(first two consecutive moves in a MUST WIN -other result loses- situation)
would give White -I reckon- 60-to-70% chance to win, which is about the same
odds as playing Black for a draw. But it's something new, which could be
tested. Here I could play Black just to try to prove me wrong, lol.
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
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-03 18:14:36)
Elo questiion
Interesting Pires. I have similiar experience I drew a game with a higher TER than m e, yet I lost points, no many though.
I give up trying to figure out the rating scheme knowing that it applies to us all equally, thats enough for me
cheers
Wayne
Charlie Neil (2007-01-03 23:04:06)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs
Hello Thibault and New Year greetings to you and your team. Blitz on ficgs. I've beeen thinking, would it be possible to have "real time" games? The human element is the difficult one there. As for the tournament set-up, how about a six round swiss system? Speaking as one down in the ratings basement, single pairings with a rapid time limit in the swiss pairing set-up would be fun. Setting games between opponents on a real time basis I imagine will be very difficult so, what about a really rapid time limit tourney 10 days plus a day a move. I'm sure there lots of options available. Well it's just a thought. No one likes drawing in a Swiss tourney, you have to play for the win!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-03 23:57:33)
Blitz Chess
Hello Charlie, happy new year :)
What do you mean 'real time' games ? What about a time control like 10 moves / 1 hour or 40 moves / 2 hours ?
I'm not sure to understand the point... Swiss system means 6 rounds not played at the same time with complex pairings. Not usual in correspondence chess. Anyway, quite hard to win a round-robin with draws, isn't it :)
Charlie Neil (2007-01-04 12:07:29)
Blitz Chess on Ficgs
Hello Thibault,
By "Real Time" I mean both players are on the site, at the board at the same time. " The rendez-vous system" as you called it.
The Swiss system of pairings by rating and then the second round having the winnners play the winners and those with no points play each other and so on into the next 4 rounds just may work I think, draws are then discouraged.
If it is possible to play 40 moves in two hours on this site that would be brilliant! But how about 2 hours each for the whole game! Games lasting 4 hours maximum would be a challenge, and maybe fun.
Along with the correspendence chess features. Ficgs would have it all! But then "you may call me a dreamer but I'm not the only one".
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-04 12:43:32)
Blitz Chess
:)
Yes, it's possible... I've to implement some things (auto-refresh of 'My games' page in case of a fast game in the list, maybe with a pop-up window), but 2 hours for the whole game may be hard due to the way to send moves... 10 moves / 1 hour or 40 moves / 2 hours could be interesting.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-01-08 14:53:13)
My new little chess site ...
... is located at http://chessbazaar.mlweb.info
There will be some computer chess related stuff (opening books, collected ICC games, database processing tips, tests results ...) together with a few games, analyses, and maybe some historical data and so on.
Not that much so far, but I wish and hope that the baby will be growing fast :-)
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-15 12:18:28)
Go : Korean awards
Korean awards 2006
Best player of the year: Lee Sedol, 9-dan
Fighting spirit prize: Seo Bongsu, 9-dan
Best junior master: Paek Hongsuk, 5-dan
Top female prize: Rui Naiwei, 9-dan
Best Korean amateur: U Dongha, 7-dan
Most popular male and female players: Lee Changho, 9-dan and Park Chiun, 6-dan
Korean records 2006
The highest number of wins: Lee Sedol, 9-dan, 78-28
The highest winning percentage: Paek Hongsuk, 5-dan, 77%
The longest winning streak: Lee Sedol, 9-dan, 14 games straight (2.13.2006 -3.21.2006)
From IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Benjamin Aldag (2007-01-17 11:37:34)
The Soft/Hardware i use
To make your own chessvideos, you need the following things:
Hardware:
a webcam and a bottle of vine (or two)
Software:
Screenrecorder Gold
Easy Video-Joiner
and a chessboard on screen. I used Chessbase 9.0, but software like the free Arena or Winboard are good enough too.
I will make more videos in the future.
Benny
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.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-01-17 18:53:15)
Wch Stage 1 group 15 00001
What is next for the winners of WCH stage winners. ? The above group now has a winner (me). What is next ?
Sorry, I have to ask, I don't think I understand the formats yet. Thank you
Wayne
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
Marc Lacrosse (2007-01-19 17:19:28)
Other forums that I visit daily
A few other computer-chess-related ones :
Winboard forum :
http://wbforum.vpittlik.org/
WBEC Ridderkerk forum (associated with one of the most reknowned engines evaluation site):
http://f27.parsimony.net/forum67828/index.htm
CSS-forum (german):
http://www.computerschach.de/forum/
Le Fou numérique (french):
http://f50.parsimony.net/forum200321/
And a very nice yahoo group devoted to unorthodox openings :
http://games.groups.yahoo.com/group/UnorthodoxChessOpenings
In another category I like the two following blogs where there are very lively daily discussions on every chess-related news :
Susan Polgar's one :
http://www.susanpolgar.blogspot.com/
Mig Greengard' daily dirt :
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/
Marc
Nigel Davies (2007-01-20 07:42:54)
Correspondence Chess
Hi Thibault,
I picked up your message and I would agree in terms that an OTB player should not try to play 'perfectly'. The point of my article was that correspondence chess can help cure OTB players of becoming 'too practical' at the expense of good moves. A lot of OTB players will develop defective (but dangerous) methods to score heavily against weaker players but get cut to ribbons when they use the same methods against a stronger player. This is particularly noticeable on the ICC, where some players will just try to win on the clock regardless of the objective strength of their moves, and most of the time it works. But their 'chess habits' suffer mightily as a result.
Best wishes,
Nigel
Michael Finkelstein (2007-01-22 08:39:51)
problems with playback --
Whenever I play back a game and hit the move button, the computer screen drops down a quarter of a page and I have to move the screen up to get to the move buttons. I use firefox as my browser
I came here from playing a lot at queen alice. That site has an easier to use and more informative interface. For instance, allowing me to download my games in progress all at once instead of one at a time; also, have a light by the name of a player to indicate he is online; a buddy list, etc.
Michael Aigner (2007-01-22 17:44:52)
Stage 2 FICGS chess world championship
Does somebody know when stage 2 of the championship is starting? Is there something to do for the qualified players (winners of stage 1) to enroll for stage 2?
Have a nice day
Michael
Michael Finkelstein (2007-01-23 04:37:26)
problems with playback --
Dear Thibault,
Thank you for your kind attention to my issue. I appreciate your efforts here very much.
When I am at the start of a game which I wish to play back, I hit the forward button to play the next move -- when I do so the screen drops a quarter of a page. I then have to go to my screen up button to move the screen up again so I can see the move buttons. Or, when it is my turn to move, I click on the piece I want to move, and the screen again drops down a quarter of a page -- so I have to do a screen up button to get back to the board and click on the square I want to go to. I assume this is a unique problem to me since I saw no posts on it. What do you think, do I need to do a better job of explaining my situation?
In regard to the light by the names of people online, I find it helpful when I logon and go to my games to see in one view which of my opponents is online, that way I can know if I will be making several moves before I log out since my opponent is online too. It is more tedious to search on my messages to see if any of my opponents is online. It would also to nice to have a buddy list so I could see stats in one view on my friends here.
Thank you so much for allowing us to download all our games in progress at once.
I did not mean to be critical. This is a nice site and you do a nice job here. Thank you again for your response to my question.
Mike
Michael Finkelstein (2007-01-23 21:25:52)
problems with playback --
Thibault,
When you are looking at your own game, or any game in the site, you see the chess pieces on the chess board on your computer screen. Belown the chess board are the arrows to move the pieces forward and back in the game in order to replay it. When you click on the arrows to move a piece forward or back as you replay the game, the screen drops a quarter of a page. Thus, to get back to the arrows to replay another move in the game you have to scroll the screen up.
Also, I just noticed that when viewing my game where it is my turn to move, the arrows for replaying the game are not present. This is a problem since I may not have played that game in many days and would like to replay before making my move to remind myself of how I got into the position.
This is a nice play to play, but I do think you shoud visit queenalice.com to see some of the nicer features that you can incorporate here to make the experience better.
Thank you for your kind consideration, Thibault.
Mike
PS I note that when I write here I do put in paragraph spacing but it does not show up in the preview or post. Yet your messages do have paragraph spacing -- how do you do that?
Mladen Jankovic (2007-01-24 14:26:13)
playback
If you want to review the game, the pop-up window that is accessed trough the magnifying glass icon is a better option, and on top of that you don't have to reload the page.
About making moves, I never noticed as I find it a better option simply to type in the move directly in english algebraic notation.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-01-24 23:22:32)
playback
Thanks for help :)
Viewing the game with the javascript viewer (magnifying glass icon) is the best way to replay a game : You can change the perspective by clicking on the numbers - vertical scale.
"When you click on the arrows to move a piece forward or back as you replay the game, the screen drops a quarter of a page." - I did not experience this yet ?! .. I don't understand how it can happen. (theorically, this happens with a url like www.ficgs.com/page.html#anchor with <a name> HTML tag or browser's back / forward buttons)
Michael Finkelstein (2007-01-26 05:23:20)
playback
Dear Thibault,
Thank you for your response. I do indeed ask how can I start a new line in a forum post. You advise that I do the following: please use < br > html tag to begin a new line)", without spaces in BR tag.. I do not know what that is. Mike
Ron Keyston (2007-01-29 17:27:38)
"Major" Deep Fritz 10 Bug
I've confirmed this problem on two different computers with completely different hardware and different operating systems. I've also sent the problem off to Chessbase, but have not yet gotten much of a response. If anyone else has Deep Fritz 10, would you mind giving this a try and reporting back with your results? Also, if anyone has the non-Deep version of Fritz 10, I'd be interested in knowing if it is also affected by this problem.
Input a game into Deep Fritz 10 and get to a point in the game where it is possible for black to castle long. Now save the game into a database, close the game and then open it back up from the database. If you either turn on infinite analysis, or just try to make the move, black is not able to castle long...Fritz assumes that it is an illegal move.
Furthermore, if you castle long BEFORE saving the game into the database, then save it and re-open it, then go to the position after black has castled queenside and turn on infinite analysis, the analysis is "messed up." Either the analysis text is invisible, or it reports impossible lines, or the evaluation score is very obviously wrong. This should be enough info for anyone to give the test a try, but if you want some specific examples, please let me know.
Ron
Ron Keyston (2007-01-29 19:04:14)
Specifics and Examples
OK, one PC is a 3.2GHz P4 w/1GB RAM running XP Pro. 256MB Hashtables with an ~800MB Maximum possible. The other PC is an Athlon X2 4600+ w/2GB RAM running Vista Ultimate (RTM.) It has 1GB Hashtables with ~1.5GB Maximum Possible. I can pretty much guarantee that it is not a hashtable issue though as the problem is with the legality of a move and only arises after saving into a database, closing the game and then re-opening it from the database. Also, if I open the same saved game from the database into Fritz 9, castling long as black is perfectly OK.
As for some examples, I will give the same five games that I sent to Chessbase. Some of these are contrived examples, whereas some are from my games here at FICGS:
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Bc4 Bg4 6.O-O Nc6 7.d4
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4 Be7 6.Bxf6 gxf6 7.Nf3 b6 8.Bc4 Bb7 9.Qe2 Nd7 10.O-O-O c6 11.Rhe1 Qc7 12.g3
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c4 7.Qg4 g6 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2 Nh6 10.Qh3 Nf5 11.g4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qb6 13.Bg2 Nc6 14.Qh6 Nxd4 15.O-O Bd7 16.Bg5 Ba4 17.Nxd4 Qxd4 18.Qg7 Rf8 19.Be3 Qxg4 20.Bc5
1.e4 d5 2.exd5 Qxd5 3.Nc3 Qd6 4.d4 Nf6 5.Nf3 a6 6.Be3 Nc6 7.Qd2 Bf5 8.Bd3 Bg4 9.Be2 e6 10.O-O-O
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3
Bxc3+ 6.bxc3 c4 7.Qg4 g6 8.Nf3 Qa5 9.Bd2 Nh6 10.Qh3 Nf5 11.g4 Nxd4 12.cxd4 Qb6 13.Bg2 Nc6 14.Qh6 Nxd4 15.O-O Bd7 16.Qg7
In all five examples, it is black to move from the final position. Also, in all five examples, castling long/queen-side is perfectly legal and likely one of the best moves. BEFORE the game(s) is/are saved into the database, Fritz allows black to castle long (and it is at or near the top line in infinite analysis mode.) AFTER saving the game into a database, closing the game window, and re-opening the game from the database, Fritz treats castling long as an illegal move.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-03 18:09:12)
To Richard & Benjamin
There are dozens of web-server-chess sites where computer use is forbidden.
If you cannot see any interest in computer-assisted play why do you play here ?
Nothing requested you to play here ...
I won't argue on the interest of computer-assisted chess. It's a question of taste and I do completely understand that you do not like it.
Every month there is a new thread in the forum complaining against computer-assisted cheaters or defending the gimmick of the poor computer-assisted idiot unable to play on its own.
This I cannot accept : go away to these numerous sites where computer is forbidden (and real cheaters abound) and let us play according to the rules of this site !
By the way if you wish do choose any engine of your liking and do let it play alone without human intervention a pair of games against any of the 100 best rated players here.
I am ready to bet that the computer alone is probably going to lose both games or at most to get one draw.
Then you will maybe understand why the human touch is decisive in these games.
And as I already said on numerous occasions, when I am going to spend dozens of hours analysing a foregoing game all along months of play I prefer that my opponent won't spoil it due to a pure magnificent and so-human blunder.
Winning against blundering self-comfident purely human opponents has no taste at all IMHO
I prefer fighting hard against one who has all kind of book and computer help assisting him.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-10 03:08:52)
Rybka, Fritz and future...
Computerchess is definitely an exciting challenge... The community is fast-growing, new versions of chess engines appear every day, many dream to be the next Vasik Rajlich and to produce an engine that would beat the well-known Chessbase engines and the famous Rybka.
These days, I had a look at Fruit 2.1, TogaII and Crafty source code that are available to download, and started to implement new search & evaluation functions. It's quite easy to understand why chess programming is so addictive, so much done and so much to do... finally I did not enter this mad race without an ending, probably for the same reasons Anthony Cozzie (the author of Zap! Chess Zanzibar) and many others retired.
However here are my feelings about future of chess engines, and the fight that just started between most probably Chessbase engines (Fritz, Shredder, Junior and Hiarcs) and a new era of chess engines that started with Rybka...
First, it's quite obvious to me that Rybka (now Rybka 2.3) is only another one of a long series of chess engines always stronger than each others ! .. I expect the next ones to reach 50, 100 then 200 points more (and maybe more) on the next chess engines elo rating lists, a scale that definitely can't be compared to human elo rating list ! .. Several reasons to this : (1) Chess engines are human killers at standard time controls, but chess engines are far to play perfect chess yet. (2) The way ratings are calculated.
Rybka taught us several things IMO :
- Algorithms and evaluation functions are no more enough. Now chess engines have to play chess, not only search a tree of chess positions... That's probably what Rybka brought to computerchess. Since Fruit 2.1 & Toga II source code is available, and computerchess community is constantly discussing improvements in algorithms, evaluations of positions and new ideas, to implement a chess engine becomes easier so I have no doubt that new very strong chess engines like Rybka will come.
- To become famous, a chess engine must 'also' beat his rivals. I first thought that Rybka was designed to be an engines killer only (at least before to be an analysis tool) with some tricks exploiting most engines weaknesses. No, Rybka is also a great UCI engine, simply stronger and with many options & features. Like Vasik Rajlich, who is engineer and international chess master, you'll have not only to think like an engineer to create such an engine. However I still don't think it is the best analysis tool for correspondence chess, it doesn't play really better chess and in all cases it is not enough. More, Rybka 3, 4, 5 shouldn't influence correspondence chess (maybe even human vs. machine) much... Computerchess influences computerchess first.
It's written sometimes that the strongest chess engines could reach a IM, even GM level at correspondence chess. I definitely disagree with that, at least for the moment (it will take a long time yet), but as chess engines results tend to approach correspondence chess ones (means more and more draws), I do think chess engines have much to learn from correspondence chess players way of thinking, meaning : A more psychological approach, bonus for traps detection. Evaluate moves, not only positions. A more complex search, not 'only' iterative (brute force is definitely useless). No more anti-human style, speculative moves (=weakness, ie. Deep Junior) for speculative results against strongest chess engines, draws are prefered. To avoid positions not understood by the engine. Longer games, closed games (if supported)... Opening books should look like correspondence chess GMs ones (of course according to the engine's style of play) and no more been made of FIDE GM games. A better time management... Future of computerGo may teach to computerchess about some evaluations.
A chess engine must play good moves AND try to win (which is not always the same). It seems Fruit & Rybka play solid and are waiting to exploit their opponent's weaknesses thanks to a better "chess" algorithm/knowledge. As far as I have seen, Shredder & Fritz still have the best 'eye', they see far but fuzzy. Quite the same about Fruit & Toga developped by a great engineer, Fabien Letouzey : Less chess knowledge but an improved algorithm. As for Rybka, a great chess knowledge and probably a smarter algorithm (not better, smarter !) were probably enough already. The future best chess engines will be made by good chess players...
An interesting point is it could be not so easy, maybe even nonsense, to create the best analysis tool that would also obtain the best results against other chess engines. My first prediction is Rybka won't be the top rated chess engine ever, hundreds of new ideas will appear in all parts of chess programming, slowly breaking Rybka secrets, then speed will be a factor again. Deep Fritz, Junior, Fruit or Hydra are most probably the core of the next generations of chess engines... but there's a lot of work yet :)
My two cents.
Elmer Valderrama (2007-02-11 19:56:12)
Topalov suspected
Following the article's gestures argument ("touches his nose, touches
his toes, touches the ground, and turn around") I think
this must make him his 'teddy' by definition
8-}
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-)
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.
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 :-)
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-23 09:13:39)
Magnus Carlsen is now at the top
After round 5 Carlsen lead with 3.5/5, winning against Topalov, while Anand lose against Aronian.
This is a great tournament, with leaders that can lose a game also against the last player. Really interesting :-D
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-02-23 13:19:20)
kasparov
In my opinion the best kasparov certainly could win all tournaments (also Morelia-Linares 2007) without any preparation
he is the best chess player of all time
he is the game of chess! :-D
Elmer Valderrama (2007-02-23 18:25:51)
Fischer
In the same vein if Fischer comes out and plays in Linares/Morelia
he'd score 13.5/14, blowing all his opponents despite playing the same
lines he always played and revealing novelties no-one thought about
even with the help of computers...
(must be Friday, :P)
Marc Lacrosse (2007-02-24 21:22:11)
not so simple ...
"I think Kasparov is the best for his aggressivity, Capablanca for his semplicity, and Alechine for his tattics."
This is way too simple...
Remember Kasparov drawing game after game for recovering after Karpov led by 5-0 in their match ...
Capablanca's play was full of tactics (I would better say full of sophisticated ways to avoid tactics - which _is_ tactics at a supreme degree).
Alekhine's tactics were most of the time allowed by too weak opposition. Among great tactical geniuses far stronger than Alekhine in this field I would cite Bronstein, Tal, Spassky, Nezmetdinov, Fischer, Shirov, Kasparov, Topalov ...
But there are also :
- Positional geniuses : Morphy, Capablanca, Botvinnik, Petrosian, and an entire class above them all Karpov, Ivanchuk, Kramnik.
- Opening prep geniuses : Botvinnik, Fischer, Kasparov
- Endgame geniuses : Rubinstein, Karpov, Korchnoi...
Well a difficult question because all top class players had several masterpieces in any of these fields ...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-02-26 09:19:55)
Round 7
Another fighting round, with Anand, Topalov & Ivanchuk winning...
I still believe in my predictions... (if not, who will do it ? :))
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-03 13:32:43)
FIDE world championship, Mexico
Here is the decision of the FIDE President (Kirsan Ilyumzhinov) in respect of the World Chess Championship cycle :
http://www.fide.com/news.asp?id=1277
Now if Kramnik wins in Mexico, Topalov will play his match against him... But if Kramnik loses his title, he (Kramnik) will play a match against the winner.
Conclusion : Topalov will support Kramnik in Mexico :)
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.
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 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 (2007-03-12 12:37:20)
A new computer Go era ?
It seems a new computer Go era just started...
http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSL2053348420070221?pageNumber=1
Quote : "The 19 by 19 board which top players use is still hard for a machine, but the new method is promising because it makes better use of the growing power of computers than earlier Go software."
Quite strange to read about the growing power of computers regarding Go... I suppose programs have much to learn first.. We will see :)
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-12 17:17:09)
Chat and SSL
Hello,
Is there a link between SSL and the chat window? What I type in the chat form does not appear anymore after sending.
Maybe it is my browser... I'll check that.
Don Groves (2007-03-14 05:52:59)
CG Rules
You could have an expert player act as referee and when this situation happens, the player who is winning easily asks the referee to end the game. If the referee agrees, he/she notifies the losing player of the decision and, if necessary, explains why.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-14 12:05:14)
Correspondence Go rules
Hmm, a problem is that when you call referee, the message is sent to your opponent too. This way, I would feel embarrassed to claim a win, in any game... Wouldn't you ? .. but maybe this is a solution, in this case I have to change the way calls to referee work.
Could other Go players react to this ? .. Thanks for your help.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-03-14 20:18:50)
Re:
Perhaps Sarkozy might win as he's "a Bove" Bayrout, Voynet, Besancenot, de Villiers, Aignant & Nihous. It might be proven again that (the)Pen is mightier than (the) Royal Buffet. Lastly, LaGuiller(tine) will face the chop.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-15 13:59:35)
Lightning chess games
Hello to all.
A new update, you may have seen a new category in money tournaments :
Lightning (correspondence) chess games, time control 30 minutes + 1 minute / move
I think it's a quite interesting time control for chess, it should attract more advanced chess players (or simply strong computers).. Really faster than "blitz correspondence chess".
I updated the server so that it is really easier to play fastly in these games. When you send your move, a new option will appear next to (Flip) and (Next). The link (Wait) will redirect you to the viewer page that will be auto-refreshed every 10 seconds. When your opponent play his move, you'll be automatically redirected to the "move" page to play your move and a pop-up window will appear to warn you (if Javascript is activated)...
Read more about in Time rules - http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#time
Money tournaments will start on April, 2
Don Burden (2007-03-20 02:48:09)
French Songs
I know a little French and really like Jacques Brel and Edith Piaf. Are they still popular in France? I'd like to find a streaming French radio station on WinAmp (Shoutcast Radio) that plays that type of music, but all I can find either plays American music, or really awful dance/disco music.
There are a lot of Jacques Brel film clips available on YouTube (www.youtube.com), like "Madeleine" and "La Valse Ā Mille Temps" that I think are great.
Nick Burrows (2007-03-21 05:51:48)
anthropomorphity..
I was attempting to illustrate that there actually is order/structure/reality that is external to human beings, that we can but glimpse at and partially understand through the medium of thought. Our only means to understand it is through thought, but that doesn't mean that what we are percieving isnt something real and of value.
a belief in no reality outside of human consciousness is a contrary viewpoint, and weakens the idea of an external reality. Too anthropic for me also. Apologies for my clumsy ramblings, just following the dialectic out loud. Bring on the games!!
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-23 18:59:07)
Not too up-to-date article...
Computers are much better in chess now than in 1998 ( :-) or :-( ... hum maybe :-( for me...). I am not sure that a player, even J. Edwards (very good player and a good chess writer too!) could be sure anymore to CC-outplay an engine running 24h/day on a modern hardware platform. He might win, yes, but might only IMHO.
Nowadays, many CC players (most?) consider that using an engine is *not* cheating, and I am so sure that *most* sites, as said in the article, do prohibit such a use. At least it could be noted that the strongest players seem to play in ICCF (or maybe iecg ... and in FICGS of course :-)) where engines are allowed. (and this is good IMO, not per se but, as it is often recalled, because their ban could not be correctly enforced)
Anyway I am looking forward to reading the next article to use more effenciently chessbase :-)
Don Groves (2007-03-26 02:04:20)
Computer Go
Yes, we were saying the same things about Chess 30 years ago. This is one reason I feel as I do, the fact that computer capabilities are still increasing just as fast as they did over that period. From experience, using the past 30 years as a guide, I just cannot bring myself to doubt there is much they won't do in the next 30 years. The reason I mentioned neural networks is that they are very good at pattern recognition which must be a large part of the solution if computers are to excel at Go. I do not think a brute force approach, or even a statistical one, will ever succeed at computer Go except in the endgame where they can dominate as they do in Chess once the number of possible moves becomes small enough. But if neural nets can be trained to recognize good shape and then apply basic fundamentals in the opening and early middle game, we already know they will excel in the endgame. It's the latter part of the middle game where I think the action will be in designing computer Go programs -- where fundamentals are not enough and there are still too many moves available to use brute force. But, if computers are ever good enough to get to a winnable endgame, watch out ;-)
Don Groves (2007-03-28 01:24:06)
Chess and politics
Now the Taliban has regrouped and is back in the game. Bush doesn't know how to finish a won game. Does he really want to win, or does he just want the game to go on forever, keeping his gang in power in the US and making even more money for his corporate buddies?
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 ...
Elmer Valderrama (2007-03-29 13:00:51)
Chess and politics
Look no further. Here it is.
The (Chess)Recipe for Success in Bussines and/or Politics
--------------------------------------
--(fortunately it had already been discovered)--
--------------------------------------
* Politics is a fairy tale of 1001 bad decisions.
* Bad decisions are all there, waiting to be made.
* Some part of a bad decision is always correct.
* The winner is the one who has made the next-to-last bad decision.
* Losses only prove that someone has erred in his decision.
* Moral victories do not count.
* To avoid losing a man, many a general has lost the war.
* It is always better to sacrifice your opponent's men.
* A threat is more powerful than its execution [the most violated rule]
* There is really only one big mistake - underestimating your opponent
[The next-most violated rule]
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-29 17:53:03)
game 6909
There was great games following this opening in the past, I remember particularly one by Judit Polgar.
Ok, let's see.. 10. ...Ng8 then.. brr, this position is simply frightening, does it really need an explanation :) .. if 10.Nfd7 then 11.Qh5, 12.O-O-O actually there's no particular line to justify 10. ...d5 IMO, the attack simply looks so strong in other cases... At least it obviously deals with obvious weaknesses in Black's position by giving some air.
Any other try to explain this hard opening ? :)
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 ?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-03-30 04:48:24)
Droppers: New Rule
Rules must stay as simple as possible.. not so easy. There will be a council, referees and moderators, but as far as I can easily referee all games played here, it means rules are quite good IMO... This new rule doesn't look so fuzzy to me : "Without an explanation", so if a game is obviously lost or if there's an advantage, that is an explanation and the game can't be considered as a forfeit. Anyway I just added ".. in an equal or winning position". By the way, there must be several games in the same cases, it should be quite easy to make the difference. Actually, there's only one player here I couldn't say if he's a dropper or not (even if he's conscious of that or not) :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-01 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 !
Catalin Ionescu (2007-04-04 21:49:29)
European Individual Championships
2 rounds played ... who do you think will win?
top seed Jakovenko has 2 points (already); the same is in the women section where Stefanova won the first 2 matches
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-06 01:22:32)
Big Chess championship
Simple rules (1 win or lead = 1 point) have some clear advantages...
I have to think about it.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-07 05:00:31)
Live games (demo)
Hello to all.
I need two chess players who would accept to play a demo game using the "blitz" time control : 2 hours + 2 hours / 40 moves.
The game would start today, 2007 April 7 at 16:00 (server clock), thanks to respond to this post if you're interested. Thus everyone will see the last server improvements that will appear with money games.. (that should start next week, a new delay :/)
Among the new features :
- Real time clocks
- Auto refresh for all & auto redirecting for the players
- Pop up windows to warn the players "it's your turn"
- Links for live games in comments on each page.
Thanks for your help !
Nick Burrows (2007-04-09 11:44:31)
chess film
Luzhin Defence starring John Turturro & Emily Watson from about 5 years back was good. Based on a Nabikov book and following the perhaps cliched path of a troubled genius' slide into madness. Wonderfully acted with v.well researched chess scenes with real positions on the boards!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-18 17:18:32)
Next & Download
Hello Graham.
About the (Next) link, the page 'move_send' guarantees to the player the move has actually been sent. It can avoid some complaints. Anyway to skip this page is not easy, you could be redirected to the next game automatically after this page but it could be a bit disagreeable.
Do you use (download) after each move ? .. Just trying to make this part of the window quite 'light'.
Thanks for suggestions.
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 09:39:24)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hi all,
a few words regarding the rules for WCH Stage 1. As far as I know now one player (out of 7) qualifies for the 2nd stage. In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify.
This is already difficult enough for newbies (with lower raing) because their opponents will have an advantage of 0.5 points in these 6 games. It's getting nearly impossible if you play in a group, where three players lost all their games on time within 10 moves (so they didn't play a single game seriously).
You can't afford a single draw in the remaining three games then, because in reality you play a tournament with only four players, where at least one player has a nominell advantage of nearly 20%!
I for myself now decided not to play future tournaments having this exceptionell ruling. Sorry to say so, but I don't see a realistic chance of winning all three games in correspondence chess nowadays, but what is needed to have a chance.
Ciao
acepoint
Achim Mueller (2007-04-21 09:59:26)
One additional thought
Take this sample of group 12, where we actually play a tournament with 4 participants. A player with the nominell highest rating can easily play on draw (using todays computer programs) in the one or two important games.
You all probably know how difficult it is to win against such a blocking guy, no matter whether your "realistic" rating would be equal to his or 200 ELO points better.
Ciao
acepoint
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-21 10:08:48)
WCH Stage 1 rules
Hello Achim.
I understand, it may look really difficult at first sight, the ideas behind this are first to make cycles not too long in order to organize a new one every 6 months (so you have more chances), second to have best chances to find the very best players in the final stages - this is the aim of a championship IMO.
Anyway, that's right the fight is often between the 3 top-rated players in these groups. So the easiest way : To get a good rating first (at least you can win some points in these groups).
It could be great to organize another event (like a cup) with different rules. Waiting for more players :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-21 10:13:26)
One additional thought
Blocking for draw is a bit losing already, I don't think it's a good strategy :) .. It is not so easy to get a draw against a good correspondence chess player, even with an army of computer chess programs, so don't trust it too much IMO. There are still many wins at a 2400+ level.
Jason Repa (2007-04-21 10:35:27)
WCH Rules
Achim Mueller wrote: "In case of having 2 or more players with the same points at the top the player with the highest rating will qualify."
This is completely logical. The higher rated player will tend to be the stronger of the group, especially if he isn't outscored by the lower rated player, so it's obvious that if you have to choose between two that are equal in points, you take the one that is more likely to be stronger. Can you think of a better and more fair way to choose between the two?
Also, I disagree with your comments about how someone "can easily play on draw". This is completely wrong. Even with the Black pieces, games can be and are won all the time, even at the very highest level of chess. Top GM's constantly are winning with black, and what is arguably considered the top computer in the world "Hydra" was defeated more than once by a garden-variety GM who had the black pieces. Regardless of color and regardless of rating, chess is a game of skill and if you need a win against a certain opponent, the onus is on you to draw on all of your resources, including choosing the type of oppening that will not lend itself to an easy draw. A weak player who doesn't understand these concepts will have no chance in subsequent rounds in a tournament anyway and shouldn't worry about advancing.
My experience is proof also. I had the black pieces against a significantly higher rated opponent in my WCH group and I beat him to secure my advancement.
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
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...
Marc Lacrosse (2007-04-22 11:59:10)
win against Anand :-)
Yesterday world number one Vishy Anand played a 90-minute simul against 19 opponents on ICC to raise funds for his favorite charity in India.
I had bought a seat and intended to play an unorthodox opening if possible.
I happened to be lucky enough to get the opportunity to play my favorite Basman-Sale sicilian defence...
... and I won !
In the very next days I will publish the game with a few comments on my site at chessbazaar.mlweb.info
This is the most beautiful day of my chess life :-)
Marc
the game :
[Event "ICC 90 5 u"]
[Site "Internet Chess Club"]
[Date "2007.04.21"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Anand"]
[Black "Bluesette"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ICCResult "White resigns"]
[WhiteElo "2786"]
[BlackElo "2155"]
[Opening "Sicilian defense"]
[ECO "B41"]
[NIC "SI.41"]
[Time "12:04:06"]
[TimeControl "5400+5"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 e6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Bc5 5. Nb3 Bb6 6. Nc3 Ne7 7. Bf4 d5 8.
exd5 Nxd5 9. Nxd5 exd5 10. Bb5+ Nc6 11. O-O O-O 12. c3 Bf5 13. Qd2 a6 14.
Bxc6 bxc6 15. Be3 Bc7 16. Bf4 Bb6 17. Rfe1 Qf6 18. Be5 Qg6 19. Qf4 Be4 20.
Qg3 Rfe8 21. Bd4 Bc7 22. Qxg6 Bxg6 23. Nc5 a5 24. b3 Bf5 25. f3 h5 26. g3 f6
27. Kf2 Kf7 28. Na4 g5 29. Rxe8 Rxe8 30. Bb6 Bxb6+ 31. Nxb6 Rb8 32. Na4 Rb5
33. Rd1 Be6 34. Ke3 c5 35. Kd2 c4 36. bxc4 dxc4 37. Kc1 Rf5 38. Rf1 Re5 39.
Rf2 Re3 40. f4 gxf4 41. Rxf4 Re1+ 42. Kb2 Re2+ 43. Ka3 Rxh2 44. Nc5 Bg4 45.
Ne4 f5 46. Rf2 Rxf2 47. Nxf2 Kf6 48. Ka4 Kg5 49. Kxa5 f4 50. gxf4+ Kxf4
{White resigns}
0-1
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-22 12:32:08)
win against Anand :-)
Great & congrats ! :) .. such a thing does not happen every day. It's a real honor to beat a top class player, even in a simul - and with Black. (would have been even more pleasant in "real life" for sure)
Do you still play some FIDE events / tournaments, Marc ?
Marc Lacrosse (2007-04-22 12:58:58)
win against Anand :-)
No I don't play serious chess over the board any more (last serious games were something like ten years ago)
But here I was very well prepared and I have considerable experience with the unusual opening I played, both from blitzes and from my correspondence preparation.
I just counted : there are more than 4900 lines of personal analysis in my Basman sicilian files ;-)
I was just lucky to get the opportunity to play this line...
Marc
Mikhail Ruzin (2007-04-22 19:39:29)
WCH Rules
If you stronger simply win the game.
Or increase you rating and get advantage. =)
Sorry, my english wery bad.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-22 21:06:10)
win against Anand :-)
4900 lines ?? .. huge !
I just looked at the game a bit deeper. You played it really well... Would you have agreed a draw at move 16 ?
Nick Burrows (2007-04-23 01:50:31)
my 64 pence worth...
I must admit that i have always disliked the Fide WC rule. It seems to be there to protect the champion rather than creating a level playing field.
The fide WC is also played over 24 games rather than 5 in the groups here.
My humble opinion is that for the WC groups of 11/13 or double round robin, would be fairer and give the skillfull players more oportunity to demonstrate that skill.
It is quite likely that in a group of 5, with just 1 or 2 critical games - the better player could finish even and be eliminated. Fine for class groups, but surely the in a 'World Championships' its worth exploring a little extra detail to find the real deserving winner.
A healthy debate! No matter what, thankyou for the provision of such a great site :)
Jason Repa (2007-04-23 03:43:01)
win against Anand
Did you receive any prize/award?
Jason Repa (2007-04-23 10:04:00)
Cheating Accusations
My advice is to take the accusations with a grain of salt. I'm a very good blitz/bullet player and years ago before I found out about ICC and Playchess.com I used to play at the crappy free sites such as yahoo and pogo. I would often be the strongest and highest rated player in the room and would get constantly accused of being a "prog". I would say take it as a compliment but these people are too stupid to understand what a good move or good technique is. They make the accusation based on successful results only.
As for your game with Anand. I think it's ridiculous to accuse you of program assistance. For starters, the game isn't very important. It's just an unrated simul game with no prize whatsoever. It seems to me you should have received some sort of award, not necessarily cash, but something chess related and of value. I understand it's for charity, but I can't see who in their right mind would pay money to play in a simul when there is no incentive to win. You might as well just write a check to send directly to the handicapped children of India.
When Chapters bookstore hired me to do a chess simul it was a fundraiser for our chess club. I didn't lose any games, but the sole person to merely draw me (28-0-1) in the 29 games I played received a free tournament entry ($30 value) to one of our local monthly events. I thought this was a great idea and had the benefit of bringing a new player into our club.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 15:22:49)
Computer use
You can't prove it, of course... I wouldn't say these accusations are totally ridiculous, it's hard to avoid it. Actually we have to accept the idea that there's a "probability" (even small) of cheating in such online events, nothing more... The fact is it's not important, so the result for Anand.. the main winner is the charity action :)
Catalin Ionescu (2007-04-23 17:00:07)
web link
you're also on Susan Polgar's blog:
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/04/anand-scored-17-wins-1-loss-and-1-draw.html
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-23 21:34:41)
Deep Fritz vs. Deep Junior
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3802
FIDE will organize a computer-computer 6-games match during the final days of the candidates match in june in Elista.
The "players" : Reigning computer chess world champion Deep Junior and 'reigning world champion' Deep Fritz. Time control : 75 min + 5 sec / move, the winner will get $60,000, the loser $40,000
This match brings a few questions : No particular comment on the choice of the engines, Rybka will wait for a win in a computer chess world championship... However I can't see a real interest for FIDE and for chess in such a match. I mean 6 games of rapid computer chess.. $100,000 !? Of course it will attract a few new players - to beat computers is an attractive challenge. But at least I hope Chessbase is the main sponsor :) .. does it mean a new Deep FRitz and Deep Junior version in june ? .. I hope that the games analyzed by Rybka 2.3 won't reveal the engines too poor.. :/ .. Finally what 'title' for the winner ?! ;)
Nicola Lupinacci (2007-04-27 01:25:32)
Elo question...
I have a question...
I have now 1410 Elo points and at next elo refresh (1st May) I probably raise at 1576 Elo points.
Now there is a problem: I arrive at 1576 becouse I have won 5 game where after 15-20 moves my opponent's clock silently finish without any other moves and in 3 or 4 of this games my opponent was in a really good position.
The question is:
Is possible do not to calculate elo variation of this particular games?
I think it is a good idea to make an option that when I win a game by time, I can choose if this game will be calculate or not calculate in my elo variation...
I suggest this becouse I gain elo points from losing games and it is not fun :(
Sorry for my bad english... :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-27 03:09:26)
Elo calculation
Hello Nicola.
Elo calculation must be a clear and fair algorith as much as possible... These rules are statistically quite good IMO (and I suppose not many players will ask for less points ;)) because rating is quite dynamic (if your rating is really too high, you'll most probably quickly lose points until the next update) then most forfeits are done before the 10 first moves. In a way, you deserved these points because you played moves enough in these games, otherwise ie. what would happen if a player forfeits after 40 moves in a drawn or lost position ? .. Is the game unrated, rated as a win, a draw ? .. It would be unrated in some other places, that's not fair IMO. There are more complex cases. One thing most important is to make rating calculation 100% automatic (no human decision is a very asked 'feature'), this way there can't be any complaint about ratings as the future rating option makes it clear.
Best, Thibault
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-04-30 14:05:46)
The meaning of Go for modern Russia
An interesting (as usual) article from IGN "Goama" newsletter - http://gogame.info
Alexander Rodin, the member of Go Federation
"The meaning of Go for modern Russia"
I'll try to state my thoughts about the meaning of the Go for modern Russia.
To begin with I suggested that we extrapolate Go models on the political and economical maps. These maps are very important as the spheres of social life, because the questions that are discussed at political and economical levels touch upon our lives, the lives of ordinary Russian citizens. In these spheres they continue the fierce struggle for life and death; in these spheres rivalry is especially keen and the made decisions define the vectors of our country development.
Let's imagine a situation if somebody inadequate came to power and set the totalitarian regime! Then all social "dissident" institution would start dying and so would do the Go Federation as a phenomenon which unifies people with independent thinking. Then it would be inevitable to start "hiding in basements" to keep the organization and set the secret addresses. Under conditions of modern Russia such kind of reasoning seems to be mostly fantastic than real. But if we look behind into our history well remember that we have already had this phase of social development and know everything about it.
I am for that only "adequate" people, patriots, must hold power (I mean all its levels: federal, regional, local and busyness elite as well). These people must think independently and it would be just perfect if they were the people who both understand the very notion of strategy and use in their activity all the arsenal of strategic instruments and among them principles, stratagems and Go philosophy.
Someone can argue: "What are the patriots who set Japan draughts?" the heart of the problem is not in the fact that somebody sets draughts and even the Japan ones. The matter of fact is that there is a "pacific" model the centre of which is the idea of balance and peaceful division of the territory and influence. If someone of us can offer something better, so let him rule. In my opinion, it's the same as to rewrite the Bible or "The Treatise of Military Art" Soun Tsi.
The Go essence manifests in the state scale in the following aspects:
The first one is historical and cultural. The game has a great history and longstanding traditions. Go is no less than a civil game with the development of which hand by hand goes statehood making in many countries. Besides, it's followed by strengthening of spirituality and moral principles of society.
The second aspect is social. Go unifies people, sets friendly relationships between them. Through Go a man manifests quickly, through it s/he can see his/her reflection. Owing to "open spiritual fight" your adversary is likely to become your best friend without saying a word during a game.
The third aspect is pedagogical. Through Go they bring up the grown generations and form their active civil position. Like chess, Go forms and consolidates dynamical stereotypes showing in following behavioral models of people. Penetrating and consolidation happen imperceptibly when sleeping, during the junction of conscious and unconscious.
The fourth aspect is economical. Why are business people interested in Go? Because through the game model a man learns how to manage material and non-material resources. Via the game s/he realizes economical and management notions: market (territory), economical integration, SWOT-analysis (the analysis of weak and strong aspects) etc. Managers start realizing the importance of interconnection and interaction of structural subdivisions ensuring. These subdivisions shouldn't be isolated from each other. They should work time in time like a well-tuned tuning fork.
The fifth aspect is political. The idea of community in politics is as relevant as the idea of group of stones. When a group is weak there is always a possibility of dividing it and this is a sign for the whole group. When our country, being a federal union of equitable subjects, was going through its stage of making a number of subjects had a wish to use the weakness of this chain. So, in 1992 1994 for the first time after the collapsing of the USSR there appeared first separatist tendencies. E.Rossel, the governor of Sverdlovskaya region, A. Philipenko, the governor of HMAO, claimed about the possibility of Ural republic creation. The emissary of Chechen separatists Gokhar Dudaev proclaimed the independence of Chechen-Ingush republic. The detachment didn't happen but the country paid with blood for it. Nowadays we can see demonstration of political integration and isolation on the modern political world map. Take a strong unity of the European Union and states-outsiders: Democratic People's Republic of Korea and Iran.
In terms of remaining of the USA's striving for establishment of world hegemony (from V.V.Putin's speech at the recent Munich conference), Russia needs the processes of integration and consolidation with other countries aimed at its strengthening. The unified countries have a lot of dame.
Now we can observe the stronger split in the CIS as a consequence of energetic and territorial policy of Russia that uses economical instruments of pressure upon "unfriendly and opposing" countries. Is it good or not? It's more likely that its bad. But there are some positive tendencies: the role of the EurAsEC as a community which's built not on the basis of "strange brotherhood" and the role of Russia in it are increasing. Go is an ideological and spiritual base making us related to the countries of Asia-Pacific region. Go teaches how to see and distinguish creative and destroying processes.
The sixth aspect is psychological. The game develops thinking, in particular such processes as analysis and synthesis. It develops the ability of seeing the whole board and its details, the ability of seeing processes proceeding at global and local levels.
The seventh aspect is verbal and lexical or even philosophical. Through studying of the game theory we realize such categories as life and death, territory and influence, reliability, stability, the whole and the parts etc.
So, what is the Go meaning on the country scale? I assume that Go, as philosophy (an ideological and spiritual base), is a very important instrument of upbringing of strategic leaders, those who make decisions at high economical and political levels that influence the country's fate. Because in Go the idea of peaceful co-existence shows the way to harmony. The most pleasant is the fact the "Go way" doesn't have an end and there sky's the limit.
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!
Garvin Gray (2007-05-02 18:48:43)
sb tie breaks
I notice that for deciding ties for first in the round robin sections of the wch, the sb tie break, followed by number of wins, has only been mentioned once or twice.
I think it really does deserve more consideration. It is my opinion that the current way of deciding who goes through to the next round- higher rating- is patently unfair. While I understand some of the arguments for (higher rating), I still think it is unfair to reward someone for something they did outside of the round robin group play.
In their rr group, they were not good enough to achieve first place on their own, so a player should not advance based on results achieved outside of that rr group.
In my opinion the tie break order should be:
1) Berger tie break
2) Total number of wins in the group
3) Result between the two or more players.
I also noticed that a few people have mentioned that more players are required in each rr group. I certainly agree with this.
Dan Rotaru (2007-05-03 00:32:46)
sb tie breaks
I believe that Garvins 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 ones 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 wouldnt 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 dont want to play in the ICCF & IECG world championship tournaments because I enjoy FICGS too much :-)
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 (2007-05-07 14:32:34)
science,art and bluff
The environment is different but there's a lot of bluff in correspondence chess IMO, even if the number of draws is higher at 2400+ level. It is no more based on obvious mistakes but on apparent "weak" moves that actually can win ie. a long endgame, particularly moves that are completely missed by the best chess engines such as Rybka. This kind of moves happens often yet, fortunately.
Don Burden (2007-05-11 02:32:13)
Chinese thoughts
Confucius could give answer to that, unfortunately Confucius not here at moment.
Kindness in heart better than gold in bank.
Truth like football, receive many kicks before reaching goal.
Politeness golden key that open many doors.
Any powder that kills flea is good powder.
Knowledge only gained through curiousity.
Man without relatives is man without trouble.
Sleep only escape from yesterday.
Do not challenge supernatural unless armed with sword of truth.
To destroy false prophet must first unmask him before eyes of believers.
When fear attack brain, tongue wave distress signal.
Drop of plain water on thirsty tongue more precious than gold in purse.
Thought at present like dog chasing own tail, getting noplace.
When money talk, few are deaf.
Humility only defense against rightful blame.
Luck happy combination of foolish accidents.
Alibi have habit of disappearing like hole in water.
Good fisherman, like clever merchant, know lure of bright colors.
Man without enemies like dog without fleas.
Front seldom tell truth, to know occupant of house always look in backyard.
One small wind can raise much dust.
Caution sometimes mother of suspicion. Suspicion often father of truth.
Nick Burrows (2007-05-12 20:45:57)
money
Im not sure that i follow the formulas correctly.
If i enter a 2 player gold tourney for 100 e-points, and win. Do i recieve a 150euro cash prize and 47 e-points?
What are the alternative payment methods to moneybookers? as i dont have a credit card.
Cheers, nick.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-12 23:16:53)
rake
Actually, ie. for a Gold blitz game (chess) the rake is 3 E-Points for White and 0 E-Points for Black !
There are 2 different rakes, a one-time rake on money entry fees (or money prizes) and another one, much lower, on E-Points entry fees : If you play only one game (a win) and ask for a money prize, the rake is the money prize one, 25 Euros (let's call it 'money prize rake') but the more games you play before asking money prizes, so applying the E-Points rake, the more the global rake will tend to the 'E-Points rake' which is much lower.
"Money prizes have to be compared to E-Points prizes that are much higher : A win in a Gold blitz game is worth 197 E-Points, meaning the more games you play before to ask for a money prize, the less charged games are. In example, if you buy 3 Gold tickets (3 x 100 Euros), you'll get 300 E-Points, then you play 30 Gold blitz chess games (15 as White and 15 as Black) : 29 draws and 2 wins with White. Finally you have 300 - (30 x 100) + (15 x 100) + (13 x 97) + (2 x 197) = 455 E-Points. At the end, if you ask for a money prize for the last game you won, you'll get a 150 Euros money prize and your E-Points account will be 455 - 197 = 258 E-Points"
Quite complicate to visualize but as FICGS is not a casino, there's a normal value added tax on money entry fees in Europe (that's why money prizes for gold tournaments can't exceed 150 euros). This way, I think the rule is quite interesting for players who play at least 10 games... Trying to write it in a clearer way.
Albert H. Alberts (2007-05-13 09:45:39)
shesnikov
ALL:
Here is a possible novelty in the Shesnikov:1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cd4 4.Nd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bf6 gf6 10.Nd5 f5 11.Bd3 Be6 12.0-0 Bd5 13.ed5 Ne7 and now tournament lines go say Re1 to respond e4 with Bf1 and win over Nc2/a4 in the endgame.
TRY 14. c3 Bg7 15. g4!? e4 16.Bc2 b4 17.cb4!? Bb2 18. Kh1 and now I was able to win for white after both Ba1 or Ba3 having gf5/Be4 or Ba4 and an open g-( and c and b)-file for white.Suppose g4 is healthy no black tournament player will engage in Shesnikov for a while? www.howtofoolfritz.com updated late april. Albert H.Alberts
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-05-13 12:44:12)
Finally!
Hi, Thibault!
Congratulations! ;)
I am interested in money thematic games. :)
I can play in evenings at 6 on clock (server time).
- Traxler counterattack with white (Nxf7 and Bxf7)
- Evans gambit with black
- Latvian gambit with white (I like Svedenborg very much :) )
I offer 30 EUR money stakes. If I win I get some money. If not, then money goes to my opponent.
Can I transfer 30 EUR to FICGS account in moneybookers.com?
Nick Burrows (2007-05-15 00:29:12)
randomise
why not randomise the 'drawing of lots' to prevent this happening?
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-15 12:31:37)
Fighting against Tablebases ...
... is like fighting against windmills (as Don Quichote did)!
Why is is so hard for some very good chess players here on FICGS, to accept their looses, to resign and to congratulate their oppenent?
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-15 20:46:59)
Tablebases 5-pieces
Thibault: Not about, but accurate mate in 37!
What is wrong with your installation - I'm not longer wondering, why you can't win against me! ;)
Robert Mueller (2007-05-20 10:19:40)
Opponent dragging out lost game
Hi, Is it possible to get a game adjudicated, if the opponent just does not resign. It is game #5664, where my opponent ist in a hopeless situation. We are already in the six men tablesbases and he is lost with check mate in 34 moves. From his original 100 days time he already used 57. He seems to be determined to drag this out as long as possible. Do I have to wait another 43 days for the win :(
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-05-21 19:32:10)
Hi, Phil! :)
I agree.
My suggestion is to play our games in that order:
1- Petrov's defence (I vs You)
2- Petrov's defence (I vs You)
3- Traxler counterattack (I vs You)
4- Evans gambit (You vs Me)
Let me to guess...
You mean that Petrov's defence games will be money games and I must win. And all games will be lighting games.
Four lighting games in a row - it will take at least seven hours. I have so much time only in holidays - Saturday and Sunday.
And we need help of Thibault to organize Petrov's defence and Evans gambit games.
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...
Don Groves (2007-05-22 06:40:38)
Dragging out lost game
Just playing devil's advocate here:
If a forced mate can be demonstrated, should this be sufficient for a win? On the other hand, should the losing player have the right to play on in hopes of an error by his opponent? It seems one of these questions should be answered with a "yes." That said, what is the rationale for the one month rule? It seems logical that either (a) the game ends immediately upon demonstration of a forced mate, or (b) the game ends normally, most likely when the loser's clock drops or he finally resigns.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-05-22 14:51:18)
#6869 ...
.. is there any win (earlier too)? This question by Thibault has to be answered.
It seems to be a clear win, but ...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-22 15:16:16)
Dragging out lost game
"If a forced mate can be demonstrated, should this be sufficient for a win?" .. the answer is yes, BUT the opponent should have the right to continue the game in a limited time, so that he can eventually see the mate and he can't last the game too much.
Albert H. Alberts (2007-05-23 14:49:38)
shesnikov
To Wolfgang Utech:
ALL openings have more secrets can the engines can detect.Invariant of the program Fritz, Rybka, Junior, whatever.Question is to unveil them.It is more difficult with greater processing speed/deeper depth. In "so-called "free style" chess (allowing use of machines) players go over ELO 3000 no draws, so some of them should be able to beat machines with ease.
Albert H.Alberts,www.howtofoolfritz.com
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-27 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...
Mikhail Ruzin (2007-05-30 13:08:42)
White win the game
Hi Phil.
And what is question about game 9752?
White win the game. Its clear.
There are not any groups with unknown (questionable) status.
Use MultiGo (for example) to count result of game. (M19 stil not defended)
"Chinese Rule:
White: 191.25 = 186 (Points) + 3 (Shared) / 2 + 7.5 (Komi) / 2
Black: 169.75 = 172 (Points) + 3 (Shared) / 2 - 7.5 (Komi) / 2
W + 10.75
Japanese Rule:
White: 119.5 = 100 (Territory) + 12 (Black's Dead) + 7.5 (Komi)
Black: 98 = 98 (Territory) + 0 (White's Dead)
W + 21.5"
Thibault de Vassal (2007-05-30 15:16:36)
White wins
Hi Phil, didn't you receive my email after you & your opponent called referee ?
Indeed, White wins this game. Feel free to try the Go scorer :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=score&game=9752
.. you'll see the score after removing stones s11, s17, r18.
You have to resign, sorry.
Best, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-01 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 :)
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.
Khaled Toutaoui (2007-06-02 18:07:31)
just a question...
i wanna know when the Stage 2 of the 2nd FICGS chess world championship will start...im a winner of the 1st stage...
Garvin Gray (2007-06-04 11:41:42)
Wch 3 in rating order
KAZ Balabaev, Farit 2580
FRA de Vassal, Thibault 2512
USA Ingersol, Harry 2502
NZL Noble, Mark 2497
DEU Schuster, Peter 2480
POL Ostrowski, Leszek 2458
ARG Brunsteins, Daniel 2452
CAN Zubac, Marius 2415
ROU Mathe, Iosif 2414
UKR Khokhlov, Igor 2370
MLT Sammut, Ronald 2362
ROU Helmer, Janos 2343
PRT Pires, Miguel 2270
LKA De Silva, Dinesh 2235
POL Sanner, Zdzislaw 2219
RUS Dyakov, Alexander 2217
DEU Schiller, Wilfried 2217
DEU Koslowski, Volker 2204
DZA Ould Ahmed, Samy 2195
FRA Appendino, Jérome 2192
GBR Taylor, William 2182
GRC Bleker, Frits 2171
DNK Jorgensen, Poulerik 2168
DEU Kesselheim, Peter 2149
CAN Repa, Jason 2144
PRT Louro, Eugénio 2123
USA Kotlyansky, Edward 2114
DEU Markus, Roland 2103
FRA Czekaj, Christophe 2098
AUT Dudulec, Konstantin 2084
CAN Plante, Marc-Eric 2079
LVA Borisovs, Leonids 2078
AUT Mueller, Robert 2069
DEU Unger, Peter 2065
AUT Riha, Josef 2019
POL Skwarczylo, Marek 2018
MUS Stephenson, Andrew 2000
CZE Stanislav, Musil 1990
SCG Vidanovic, Djordje 1966
USA Burden, Don 1959
DEU Haluschka, Rainer 1950
CAN Rotaru, Dan 1937
GBR Wyborn, Graham 1890
GBR Burrows, Nick 1884
POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 1879
BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1875
AUS Gray, Garvin 1863
USA Minkin, Alexander 1850
GBR Josse, Mark 1806
ARM Khachaturov, Vadim 1803
USA Kotlyanskiy, Ilya 1800
DEU Krueger, Karsten 1800
PRT Vasquez, Fernando 1775
DZA Toutaoui, Khaled 1763
DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 1746
TUR Yuvarlak, Ugur 1732
ROU Hrubaru, Mircea 1726
ARG Carrizo, José 1724
USA Phillip, Lennox 1700
ROU Kondort, Mihai 1700
ROU Ioan, Bucsa 1700
BRA Miranda, Marcus 1691
VEN Flores, Luis 1680
RUS Ruzin, Mikhail 1639
DEU Faust, Dieter 1627
MYS Behrmann, Klaus 1617
FRA Bellanger, Michel 1606
POL Bester, Kazimierz 1600
DEU Nent, Alexander 1593
PRT Oliveira, Carlos 1586
HUN Nagy, Attila 1549
ROU Ionescu, Catalin 1535
HUN Kis-Kos, Laszlo 1512
ITA Lupinacci, Nicola 1492
BEL De Groof, Pieter 1465
DEU Odendahl, Marcel 1462
USA Hendricks, Richard 1459
BRA Queiroz, Florencio 1444
CZE Pech, Jaroslav 1433
USA Goodwin, Adam 1415
HUN Csoma, Robert 1400
USA Gillz, Nicolas 1400
BGR Toktas, Ibrahim Ugras 1400
IND Veeraiah, Karuppaiah 1400
MEX Ortiz Durán, Esteban 1400
TUR Ilhan, Alper 1400
CHE Margot, Alain 1400
TUR Erdonho, Erdinį 1400
USA Lipsits, Sasha 1400
BRA B. Lima, Edmilson 1400
DEU von Buttlar, Paul 1386
HUN Fenyves, Adam 1330
BGR Stoianov, Stoian 1316
GRC Serd, Than 1300
TUR Ak, Murat 1300
GBR Willoughby, Peter 1294
ARG Orden, Jorge 1264
GBR Neil, Charlie 1212
NLD Oldenhof, Dwight 1203
USA Greer, Stephen 1200
BRA Barradas, Anderson 1194
IND Malvankar, Vikrant 1188
BEL Tuteleers, Bruno 1145
DEU Bothe, Matthias 1143
BGR Stoyanov, Zdravko 1136
Nick Burrows (2007-06-05 01:53:27)
Round 3
What a wonderful first round of games! I was lucky to watch them all on icc, and managed to pick 6 winners.
Hats off to Magnus Carlsen, what a fearless display of chess. I now believe he will be a long reigning WC in 3 0r 4 years time.
For the next round i will unadventurously choose Aronian/leko/grischuk/gelfand
they should all be tight, id like to see Gata win, but fear his openings will be too weak against Gelfand.
I eagerly anticipate the games!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-06 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 (2007-06-06 19:12:00)
Rybka: $100,000 challenge to FIDE
The author of Rybka - undoubtly the strongest chess engine (Rybka 2.3.1), Vasik Rajlich challenges FIDE for a $100,000 match between Rybka and the winner of the "Ultimate Computer Chess Challenge 2007" between Deep Junior and Deep Fritz, that just started (first game drawn) :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=1126
Also the match offer to grandmasters is more and more interesting :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=794;pg=1
I doubt Chessbase or FIDE would accept to organize & play such a match, even if Fritz 11 or 12 can beat the next Rybka... The war of engines is not on the chessboard nowadays but that's quite interesting to follow anyway :)
Graham Cridland (2007-06-06 21:22:22)
Next Round Winners
Aronian
Leko
Gelfand
Grischuk
You heard it here first. Aronian, Leko, and Grischuk just outclass their opponents, and Gelfand is currently much better prepared than Kamsky.
Nick Burrows (2007-06-07 00:05:01)
intersting offer!
Thanks for that link Thibault, a very interesting offer. I hope it goes ahead. I think all 2700 players would win, 2600's maybe even. But it is of course very difficult to predict. If only i was a grandmaster...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-09 04:48:24)
Nodes per second
Well, game 2 was a draw, game 3 was a win for Deep Junior...
"Deep Fritz is running on an eight-core machine and searching 13-14 million nodes per second, reaching a search depth of 20-21 ply. Deep Junior is employing the latest Intel Server technology with 16 cores. The program is running at 24 million nodes per second and consistantly reaching search depths of 24 ply."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3916
Not bad in such a time control : 75 min + 10 sec per move... but does it mean anything to run two engines on two different computers !??
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-12 19:11:21)
More rating lists ?
What about more rating lists at FICGS ?
- Correspondence chess active & inactive players lists
- Blitz & lightning rating list
- Big chess rating list (class tournaments !?)
- Go rating list
Also there could be casual blitz & lightning chess tournaments with entry fee & prizes, blitz & lightning games with a tiny entry fee (no prize) and more ways to win E-Points...
Feel free if you have any comment or idea...
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-14 10:04:00)
Figlio - Schuster
Before champion a last match has to be played between the final winner of this KO match and the over all winner of the round robin tounaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-14 20:38:14)
Figlio - Schuster
It has just been updated. Anyway in this list both players are winners of the match, but according to the WCH rule, Peter qualifies for the next round.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-14 22:45:22)
Figlio - Schuster
Have a look into the WCH tournament rules: "The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
Any questions?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-15 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 02:23:50)
Dead Man's Defense
Ok, that's an interesting topic.. and should be discussed for sure !
Once more, there are 6 pieces on the board and even if it is an obvious win, my engine doesn't say Mate in # moves (so your opponent may not see the mate too).
How to react ? .. No hypocrisy, IMO there's no perfect way to answer this problem. If the DMD doesn't work after tablebases, it will work well before, so players will last the game earlier. Of course it's a way to manage rating and so on... Is it really possible to avoid this ?
Any suggestions ?
Be patient anyway... :)
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-17 00:21:41)
Rating lists
Hi Thibault,
What is the difference between established and preliminary rating lists? Also I think that filtering players who haven't logon in the last two months is a little bit too restrictive. Maybe 6 months or a year would be reasonable? (just a suggestion). If I win the lottery (and really hope so) and I decide to spend three motnhs on an isolated island with no internet access i wouldn't want to loose my established rating.
Charlie Neil (2007-06-17 13:03:53)
Me as well
I did win both my games against Gameknot! So I'd gladly volunteer my services again. (Thibault, is it a "computer assistance allowed" match? Because all my moves are Carbon-based.)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 01:50:11)
Translators needed - all languages
Hello to all.
Thanks to players who helped me to translate the home page to spanish, italian and deutsch already ...
I still need some help to translate it to all other languages : russian, romanian, chinese, japanese, korean... and so on !
Anyone who have some time to translate these lines can do it by clicking here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_wiki_en-ficgs_home_page.html
... then following the link to your language.
Thanks in advance !
Best wishes, Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-18 02:05:59)
World Computer Chess Championship (WCCC)
Is this World Computer Chess Championship still worth something without programs such as Hiarcs, Junior & Fritz ?
This way, only 3 or 4 games are decisive and undoubtly - or I should say randomly - Rybka will win ahead of Zappa and Shredder. At least Rybka will obtain the "last major" title to pretend to be the very best chess engine.
WCCC 2007 - http://www.grappa.univ-lille3.fr/icga/news.php
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.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-07-12 18:24:02)
game 8029
Responded in international chat, but it is rather cumberson.
My thoughts. White still has 10 days on his clock, so I would think he has the right to slow play it here.
In addition white has winning chances, that should be considered.
Lastly if you do adjudicate it Thibault I guess you would award a draw.
If white is holding up progress it would seem to me the fault is not his but in the selection of match time controls. White has every right to expect to use all of his clock, do you not agree Thibault. :)
Wayne
Viktor Savinov (2007-06-19 15:01:22)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Thibault, If you plan to win this match that it is necessary to expose structure: 1 board-2580.... 25 board-2350
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.
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-20 16:34:00)
Hello Thibault and all!
First of all, thanx for letting me defend the colours of FICGS Team. Oh, no, no spies on the parts the Russian players in our team. We will play fair and at our strongest. And I want to warn you that the IGAME team is really pretty strong and made of tough titled Russian players: GM, IM or GM, although they didn't feel like exposing their correct data or rating. You know, they feel they can win that match, on the one hand, and want to obtain some advantage in case we underestimate their chess strength, on the other hand. After all, honesty is not their best feature, alas. So be on guard, folks! The foe is at our gateway! Lol! Anyways, I want this match to be a fair play one and run with the ICCF motto: Amici sumus! (We are friends!). Good luck to anyone and interesting and exciting games to you! Remember, this match is a good point to win new friends over the globe behind the game of correspondence chess! Play at your strongest but bear in mind your match opponents are likely your partners in chess masterpieces than bitterest enemies. Be happy and have a fine day!
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
Alexander Shalamanov (2007-06-21 08:46:21)
The rating principle is a must
Hi, mates!
I sincerely believe the rating principle should be a concern when arranging the team members in a match challenge. That way we would provide for the fair play principle. It doesn't make any sense to try gaining cheap wins. Remember, honesty is the best policy.
Cheers,
Alex
Denis Stork (2007-06-21 22:11:39)
from Russia with love
Greetings to all!
So here we are, fresh new Russian players, to participate in FICGS vs. IGAME match.
I'd like to give a short explanation of our "disguising identities". The thing is that mostly our names really won't say anything to you. iGame is just an amateurs' site and with the upcoming match we have a good chance to find out which material we really made of. :)
So show us maser-class. And let the strongest win! :)
Good night and good luck ! :)
Dan Rotaru (2007-06-22 00:41:00)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
I am proposing the following idea to solve the problem of Lightning and Blitz Time Controls: the first person who signs up should be able to choose a date and time when the game should start (use server time to avoid confusion). The player who accepts the challenge should accept that he has to logon and play the game at the established date and time. Of course any of them can cancel the game or ask for a new date and time if for any reason they cannot play.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 01:51:23)
Lightning and Blitz Time Controls
That's an idea, but I'm making some changes to help to find opponents more easily. I hope it will help...
First, experience shows that rating rules are still too hard IMO : A player winning or drawing against another one rated 350 points more most often means the lower rated player should be rated higher, not the contrary... A few games only are concerned, but with provisional ratings such results are still not fair, and many players rated 2100 to 2300 fear to lose points in the chess WCH, even if they win their groups. This rule should allow strong players not to fear (too much :)) to play against anyone in rated tournaments without rating restrictions, like blitz & lightning ones.
Consequently, the rule "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 350" will be changed to "In case of a loss or draw against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Elo - 200" in a few hours.
The entry fees & prizes (E-Points) will change also, most important is to attract more players to start more advanced chess games.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-22 20:30:57)
Rybka's strength at CC time controls
An interesting poll, following a discussion at TCCMB :
http://ancients.correspondencechess.com/index.php?topic=109.msg809
Let's say Rybka playing alone, running 4 days per move (quite useless IMO) on a multi-processor computer, which rating would it/she achieve at FICGS ?
In my opinion, 2200 (with some peaks to 2300) would be great already... What do you think ?
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
Ilmars Cirulis (2007-06-23 10:00:51)
Nicknames
I don't care about it...
I will play as good as I can and try to win. No care who is sitting against me.
Even Kasparov with nickname Denis Kuznec.
:)
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-23 10:21:35)
Nicknames
It's up to you - I think different! Preparation is an inportant thing in high-level chess (correspondence same as OTB) if you want to win or just to hold a draw against a very strong player.
Michael Aigner (2007-06-23 12:55:32)
Rybka 2.3.2a would!
Hi!
Rybka follws the mentioned game Motley -Anand but finds an improvement at move 24.
24. Bh5 Qf5 26. Bxg7 with an unclear (IMO, according to Rybka equal position.
it could follow Nc5 (Kxg7 26.Rf1) 26. Rxd8+ Kxd8 27.Kd6 Kd3+ 28.cxd Qa5+ 29.Ke2 Kxg7 still unclear, but in an otb game i would shourly prefer to play white.
I can imagine when you look deeper in the position after Bh5 you might find a win for white - or lets say a variation in which it is almost not possible for black to defend in an otb game even when the objective evaluation says the position is equal. This could be the reason why Re8 is prefered by strong human GMs.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-23 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 ?!
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
Charlie Neil (2007-06-25 14:45:39)
Ficgs vs Igame.ru
Is this the most replied to forum in Ficgs history? Regarding nicknames so what? It's a friendly match. Amici Sumus. (And psychology in chess still can win the game before the first move!) As far as I am aware you must give your real name to the administrators on the site before you can use nicknames. So there you go. Now play the board and not the man.........Look at my rating very very low but I have fun! it's only a game.
Albert H. Alberts (2007-06-25 14:48:57)
Deep Fritz vs. Deep Junior
FICGS: Junior won over Fritz Elista 2007. Very sharp but correct remark by M.Aigner: people that bought Fritz will now want to have Junior too the FIDE-approved champ by K. Ilyumzinov= ICGA=FIDE=CHESSBASE=FRITZ(=Junior?).
However: he future champ will be the program with the best BOOK with sharp novelties. The future world tournament champ will be the one who knows/WROTE this book. It is like in cycling: you can have a great "bike" (chess engine) but to win the Tour the France you still have to peddle. That champ/novelty finder/writer/head player can be one and the same person. Great news for the sport I think.The new "Fischer" will come.
Albert H.Alberts, www.howtofoolfritz.com
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-06-25 17:48:40)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Let me explain I dont want to have any exception rules for me! Its 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: Im standing (with my real name) to all my many bad or neutral games as same as to my some very good chess performances. Ive always used tools (first just books and later also engines), but Ive 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 wouldnt 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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-26 01:35:03)
A guide to Endgames Tablebases
Endgames tablebases fully explained, a great page :
http://horizonchess.com/FAQ/Winboard/egtb.html
* [A.1] What is a endgame tablebase? How do they work? How much stronger will it make my chess program play?
* [A.2] What are the different endgame tablebases formats out there? What are the differences?
* [A.3] Where can I learn more about the endgame table formats?
* [A.4] What are the Chess programs that support endgame tables? Which format do they support?
* [A.5] Where can I get endgame tablebase?
* [A.6] Where can I buy tablebases?
* [A.7] Where can I download tablebases?
* [A.8] How do I generate tablebases on my computer?
* [A.9] How large are the tablebase files? Can I put then all into one directory? Do I have to use a complete set of 5 men tablebases?
* [A.10] Questions about 6 men endgame tablebases. Which are the most useful?
* [A.11] How do I find out which tablebase is corrupted? How do I know the endgame tablebases are working?
* [A.12] What is datacomp.exe? Where can I get it?
* [A.13] How do I get Crafty to work with Endgame tablebases?
* [A.14] How can I get Fritz to use Endgame tablebases?
* [A.15] What is the difference between tablebases download from Dr Hyatt's ftp site and those on the Chessbase endgame turbo CD? Can they be used together?
* [A.16] What are the files ending with .tbs? What about those with nbb and nbw? Do i need both?
* [A.17] Help, the endgame tablebases are not working properly!
* [A.18] Can I use tablebase files in zipped form?
* [A.19] Where can I get a useful graphical browser to view endgame tablebases? What about an online searchable database?
* [A.20] Misc questions
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 wouldnt 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 Im 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!
Sergey Pligin (2007-06-27 19:24:46)
Our team
Here is our squad, in accordance of boards:
1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2182
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148
12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185
The following players will play using their real names:
Sumets Andrey GM
Pligin Sergey
Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich
Vovk Andrey IM
Yunusov Adkham
Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich
Leskiv Miroslav
Domanov Dmitry
Silkin Aleksey
Orlov Sergei
Gerasimov Vladimir
Larin Igor
Pezikov Evgeny
Ilyuschenko Yury
Prokopenko Alex
Shpakovsky Alexander
Thibault de Vassal (2007-06-27 21:18:36)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU, the games
Hello to all.
The friendly match between FICGS & IGAME.RU teams just started :)
http://www.ficgs.com/tournament_FICGS__CHESS__FICGS_VS_IGAME_RU_MATCH.html
I'd like to thank Sergey Pligin for organizing this match and all players who registered to play. I apologize to the players who couldn't play :/ .. 25 boards was not enough this time. To build FICGS team I selected players with the highest ratings but one cause his rating should be clearly >2000 already. Also IM Mark Noble plays at table 6 because his opponent is another FIDE IM.
I wish good games to everyone, this is a great opportunity for us to meet russian chessfriends.
Amici Sumus !
... quote of the day : "Top boards make the show, last ones win matches." :-)
Here are the complete teams :
FICGS :
1. Thibault de Vassal # 1
2. Michael Aigner # 139
3. Peter Schuster SM # 323
4. Janos Helmer # 47
5. Miguel Pires # 83
6. Mark Noble IM # 1991
7. Leszek Tymcio # 2151
8. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff # 142
9. Silviu Nenciulescu # 1319
10. William Taylor # 1232
11. Poulerik Jorgensen # 940
12. Wayne Lowrance # 135
13. Edward Kotlyansky # 1140
14. Christophe Czekaj # 1193
15. Konstantin Dudulec # 1329
16. Robert Mueller # 1233
17. Josef Riha # 157
18. Dan Rotaru # 1394
19. Garvin Gray # 1363
20. Nick Burrows # 1643
21. Vadim Khachaturov # 1078
22. Daniel Khayman # 1032
23. Gaetano Laghetti # 138
24. Alexander Nent # 1411
25. Ilmars Cirulis # 533
IGAME.RU :
1. Sumets Andrey, Member # 2137, GM
2. Pljusnin Ivan, Member # 2147
3. Pligin Sergey, Member # 2189
4. Doinikov Owl, Member # 2191
5. Romitsin Nikolay Sergeevich, Member # 2159
6. Vovk Andrey, Member # 2144, IM
7. Yunusov Adkham, Member # 2124
8. Pavlikov Andrey Nikolayevich, Member # 2157
9. Leskiv Miroslav, Member # 2133
10. Domanov Dmitry, Member # 2130
11. Kragujevcanin Stole, Member # 2148
12. Silkin Aleksey, Member # 2198
13. Orlov Sergei, Member # 2207
14. Kim Vladimir, Member # 2139
15. Gerasimov Vladimir, Member # 2190
16. Larin Igor, Member # 2193
17. Zarullin Ivan, Member # 2203
18. Filimonov Evgeny, Member # 2176
19. Pezikov Evgeny, Member # 2174
20. Stork Denis, Member # 2180
21. Mancubov Boris, Member # 2156
22. Ilyuschenko Yury, Member # 2168
23. Prokopenko Alex, Member # 2182
24. Basiliev Iouri, Member # 2205
25. Shpakovsky Alexander, Member # 2185
Edit : There was a mistake while building the games, I had to make a replacement at board 23.
Garvin Gray (2007-06-28 06:10:18)
board orders
Hello,
I have a real problem with the board orders that igame have put in.
Why is a 2200 elo player on board 25 for igame.
I was not aware that this team match was going to be played in this fashion. I thought it was a simple principle that both sides play in roughly rating order.
Not impressed at all!
If igame wants to win that badly that they are playing one of their best players on the bottom board, they can have two wins right now as far as I am concerned.
Vadim Khachaturov (2007-06-28 22:44:14)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU
Dan, Your opponent uses nickname filler on IGAME.RU. His rating is 2241. One of the lowest in their team.Here is his stats : win 18 draw 8 lost 1.
Ivan Zarullin (2007-06-29 11:06:24)
russian norms and titles
Dear Thibault, you can find russian national chess norms at http://www.rossport.ru/pdf/chess.xls.
E.g., to become a national master a russian player have to reach 2450 ELO and to accomplish IM norm, or to win World\Europe Championship U16 or U18.
Marc Lacrosse (2007-07-02 18:22:50)
Too fast
10+20 is a timing where a strong engine playing alone with a good book is unbeatable.
No time left for creative human added value ...
That's the reason why Freestyle tournaments on Playchess recently evolved from an initial 45 min + 5 sec/move to a slower timing (60 min + 15 sec/move)
I am pretty convinced that at 10 min + 20 sec increment the one with the most powerful computer will win for sure...
Marc
PS for a mean 60 moves game, 10+20 is equivalent to 30 seconds per move.
Freestyle tempo (60+15) gives a mean 75 seconds per move.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-07-03 13:08:47)
Small board variations
I know that on this site people tend to talk much about large board variants, but, recently I have gained an interest in small board variants.
The reason is simple. They are fun!
I'm interested in the experiences of other members.
I've so far played only Los Alamos Chess. About 30 games. They were simply fun, regardless of winning or loosing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Alamos_chess
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minichess
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.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-07-09 19:14:25)
Re:
There is certainly a formula for calculating the number of points you have to win in order to get a certain norm.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-07-14 18:37:07)
It is a clone 2.
The following is just one of many close observations. There are so many documentations I would not try to sum them up. :)
The main problem is identical or almost identical analysis both in evaluation and search.
Studying rybka's output in order to improve your evaluation(assuming rybka has better evaluation) make sense but even in that case I do not expect a program to have identical evaluation to rybka even in situations when it does not make sense to have evaluation that is different than 0 as King against king.
Rybka tries to hide her evaluation but not writing output at small depth and this is the reason that I am basically interested in analysis of fortress
positions because in fortress positions the evaluation is partially exposed.
It is logical to learn from this experience of analysing fortress position and get evaluation that is more similiar to rybka but having evaluation that is totally identical in more than one case does not make sense and it cannot be an accident and the problem is not only identical evaluation but also identical search in many positions as evidence proved and even if the evaluation is different I can find the same patterns in the score changes.
This can happen only with copying code and it cannot happen without cloning.
The programmer of strelka did not understand rybka's code otherwise he could avoid the same bugs.
Same pattern of drop in the evaluation score when you have a queen.
This pattern is also in old strelka.
Why does it happen?
Note that no other program that I know shows drop in evaluation for white by more than 3 pawns.
Strelka's score drops from
+- (12.53) in depth 6 to 8.50 in depth 7
Rybka's score drops from 12.34 pawns in depth 4 to 8.37 pawns at depth 5
I find this compelling, if you understand it
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-07-15 12:25:27)
Invitation in WCH 1 stage 3 round-robin
Hello to all.
As I've been asked, in WCH 1 round-robin final tournament there are 2 players from WCH 1 stage 2 group 3 because it was not possible (at least desirable) to adjudicate game 8029 in its current position (move 36)... So it is not possible to tell who wins the group yet. However if I had to adjudicate this game, it would be a draw so Alberto Gueci would win the tournament. As WCH 1 stage 3 must start now and as I needed one more player to fill the group, according to the rules Francois Caire (due to his position of possible -likely- winner in the tournament and his rating) was invited to solve game 8029 problem.
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-07-15 14:55:22)
Rybka vs. Human
Thibault, in my oppinion problem is your definition of intelligence. Is Kasparov really more intelligent than i.e. Jean-Paul Satre (or Johann Wolfgang von Goethe)???
A man like Bobby Fisher was/is showing, that excellent specialised skill (of chess) nothing has to do with enough intelligence for life!
William Taylor (2007-07-15 16:47:23)
Go ratings
At the moment only ELO ratings are shown beside players' names when viewing a go tournament. I would prefer dan/kyu rank to be shown than ELO rating (or both). Discuss.
Nick Burrows (2007-07-15 19:04:34)
Fisher
Oh abrasive Dr Repa,
Your proof of Fishers intelligence were the accomplishments of winning some games and designing a chess clock.
It is my opinion that liberating a sub-continent from imperial rule is a much greater accomplishment.
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 19:21:37)
Rybka vs. Human
Actually burrows, as usual, you have everything completely backwards. You're the little character here trying to pass yourself off as a DR., not me. If you're going to pretend to be an educated man, you should at least learn how to spell FISCHER. Fischer's IQ has been tested when he was in high school and was in the 180's. I'm not going to hold your hand here, learn how to look something up for yourself for a change.
You're really making it quite obvious to everyone what you are with that silly comment about Fischer merely "winning some games".
And as usual your attention span isn't long enough to remember what we were talking about. It was INTELLIGENCE, not social influence.
Jason Repa (2007-07-15 19:45:58)
Rybka vs. Human
"I am low graded. I don't have a degree. I am a little character, pretending to be educated. i can't spell. I need my hand holding. i have no attention span. i make sill comments."
All of those statements are true, and in fact most of them can be proven by the information contained in this thread. The one exception, the low grade, can be confirmed by a simple google search showing all the under 100 bcf (under 1700 uscf).
I wasn't the one trying to prop myself up with alot of psuedo-intellectual psychobabble burrows....you were. I never said a word about myself here so don't start telling lies again. We were discussing Fischer. Unlike you, I don't need to drop pop psych. terms in internet forums to try to impress people. I know what my level of intelligence and education is.
Jason Repa (2007-07-16 20:45:16)
Sandipan destroys Tiviakov
Anyone else having problems viewing the game in the java viewer?
Dinesh De Silva (2007-07-17 04:53:18)
Re:
Haha! Good point! I actually do sleep. In the game you refer to, I was actually lucky to make the time control. Nevertheless, I had earlier lost a few games due to sleep! as I sometimes missed moves by a mere few seconds to time control. Some of those games I had some good positions Anyway, the main thing here is I enjoy my games win, draw or lose.
Jason Repa (2007-07-24 03:14:47)
Human vs Human chess
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/rvsc.htm
Garvin Gray (2007-07-27 18:51:31)
competition
I think one of the concerns for this competition is that it could very much start to just look like a smaller PAL playchess competition, except that the entry fee is the same but the prizes are way smaller.
Higher chance of winning those smaller prizes though lol
Nick Burrows (2007-07-28 22:41:30)
a question
Is it possible that after playing too much chess, the intense desire to win seeps into all areas of life?
So having the effect that a conversation becomes something to win, rather than a means to understand each other better.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-08-03 17:59:45)
Algorithm
It provides the algorithm for best play in any position.
An ultra-weak solution is not really a solution, it's only a proof that a solution exists and what properties it must have (draw, first player win most commonly). Such solutions tend involve the strategy stealing argument.
It is essentially proving a mathematical theorem.
Dinesh De Silva (2007-08-05 06:45:36)
A translation needed
Can anyone translate for me the following into English:
"El final es claramente tablas, no hay forma de forzar la posiciķn, ya que el Rey blanco está mal ubicado y no puede zafar del perpetuo de la Dama negra. El análisis de Luzuriaga comienza con la jugada 48.Qe5+ por lo que se presume que ésa hubiese sido su jugada de continuarse la partida. La réplica negra 48. ... Kg8 que él indica es mala y lleva a una posiciķn perdida para las negras, pero si las negras juegan 48. ...Kh7 como bien indica De Silva en sus análisis no hay forma de ganar el final. He comprobado todas las variantes en la computadora y en todas ellas el resultado es el mismo TABLAS."
Mladen Jankovic (2007-08-06 00:06:41)
Algorithm
It seems to be implemented with Chinook. It offers perfect play. Like when knowing the solution to tic-tac-toe, play is perfect.
Dwight Oldenhof (2007-08-06 15:05:52)
future rating
What happens when I win a game (e.g. game 11686) and nothing changes the number of games calculated or my future ELO rating? That number was 3 before I won the match and unfortunately stayed 3. Consequently, future ELO and performance rating didn't change either.
Mladen Jankovic (2007-08-07 00:54:18)
re:
At least not rated as a win.
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 17:16:34)
2 Ivan & Sergey
"pig" doesn't look like much "pig-headed fan" IMO... but of course I may be wrong :)
Anyway, playing with the rules is a tough game where nobody wins, ever.. quite obvious.
Thomas Tamayo (2007-08-15 14:47:04)
SGF Result field
Would it be possible to update the SGF Result field for a completed game?
For example:
Black wins on time: B+T
Black wins on score/resign: B+ (since no scoring is done on the server).
It might clear up problems like the thread post "Go game 10878 Why black resign?" (it is unclear if it was time or resign).
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-16 03:23:47)
Dead groups
That's a bit harder at correspondence Go since players may be not connected at the same time to discuss the dead groups. But anyway that's not a big difference, players can use the 'Score' function, remove dead groups then eventually write the score in public comments. By the way, is the score so important for spectators ? .. Knowing W+12,5 may not help to understand why White won :) .. Moves are all IMO.
I'll add the "lost on time" SGF comment tomorrow.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-16 03:27:25)
to be or not to be...
:) ... You asked.. if I answered yes, I would be out of law.
However a way would be that you win the next game against Ilmars ;)
Charlie Neil (2007-08-19 16:56:18)
Draws and wins
Hello Everyone. I have just checked my chess rating and win/loss/draw ratio. I haven't 'won' that many games. The vast majority are 'time-outs' as my opponents silently withdraw. Well, that's how it is at the bottom of the table. Are there a lot of 'time-outs' elsewhere on Ficgs?. You can expect that in a free site and players do go for whatever reasons. But my number of draws, 6, I think. Very low. I don't engage in chats with my opponents very much, just because I can barely concentrate on the game. anyway the question(s) is(are) why so few draws? Are Ficgs players so good?
Dinesh De Silva (2007-08-20 06:04:54)
Re: Your Best Quotes
"Kasparov's greatest move was showing the rest of the world that the darkest part of Rasputin still survives & terrorises Russian politics."
Thibault de Vassal (2007-08-23 11:46:08)
Draws and wins
Hello Charlie.
Maybe I should add some statistics in this way on the 'About' page. Could be interesting... To be continued.
Philip Roe (2007-08-23 17:31:35)
draws and wins
Those statistics might have some curiosity value but perhaps not much deep meaning. Especially in the lower sections, all of the games defaulted in ten moves or fewer give a false impression of decisive play. Even if they are excluded, I feel sure that the proportion of draws is much higher for stronger players, so I dont know what an average percentage would tell us.
Philip Roe (2007-09-01 04:24:39)
private/public messages
I too would like to send private messages, perhaps to congratulate the winner of my tourney. Also, can one add public comments to a game that is finished?
Either ones own game or someone elses?
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-01 12:43:09)
Free of chess engine
Thanks Thibault for reconducing me to this past forum. Very interesting. The part about "real" elo and correspondance elo is edifying. I know correspondence players could have a huge better elo than their real life one (if they have any) : more time to think, no stress, no pressure (or less) but I believe players who play without engines have a coorespondence rating approximately equal to their over the board one. Personnaly, I play coorespondence chess to try new opening, to train generally since I cannot play over the board so often since 2 years. I often play from the office, wtih sometimes a couple of minutes on a move, or sometimes I go home with the moves to think about my response in over the board conditions (30 minutes maximum on one move). My correspondence elo is around 2000 (with a good start with a peak to 2098, but declining since ;-D) and my over the board rating is now 1990 (with a peak to 2040 last year, and a rapid elo around 2100). So I sometimes feel a bit fed up with playing against chess engines, notably, but perhaps I'm wrong I have remarked that since I got an advantage, often opponents defend very very well, like computers in fact. Ok it's part of the game, and I know t could be a good training, fight hard to win a game, display a good technique, etc. but it could be disappointing to have the impression of play with a human opponent and have to finish with an another, i.e. the computer. Perhaps could we compare over the board elo, with correspondence elo to know if there is computer help or not ?
Anyway, a special category of tournament will be great, and I'm eager to play with other ficgs "OTB-correspondence" players.
Philip Roe (2007-09-01 22:01:21)
quotes
As the days dwindle down.. to a precious few...(Maxwell Anderson, September Song.. or any CC-player)
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!
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-05 05:04:29)
Adjudication
Thibault I understand that to some players it might be unacceptable to have the game suddenly declared lost or drawn in a Q v Q+P ending or R+P v N+p ending. In my view these players should opt for the non computer tournaments you are going to set up. To cover the point raised: yes there can remain a need for a referee which should be human. Linking to table bases does not affect the beauty of an endgame Thibault its just a small range at the moment of 6 piece endings. There is no aesthetic value in following the moves advised by the tablebase the value is in getting there. Every strong player is consulting the tablebases when analysing positions leading to 6 piece situations so automating table base adjudications in say A M and WCC tournaments seems completely logical. Yes strong tournaments are played only for the sporting result Thibault I dont think anyone would choose an inferior move for the beauty they might try it to take a risk to win by complicating the game. I have seen 30+ moves games of yours of absolute poisened pawn Najdorf theory leading to a dead draw ..... I guess what I am trying to avoid is opponents dragging out games which are table base won. In the case of reasonable strong opponents 2100+ in my view this is because they just dont want to resign. by the way how do you call for the referee?
Garvin Gray (2007-09-05 06:30:28)
calling referee
Andrew- By the way how do you call for the referee?
Scroll down in the game window in question and press call referee and follow instructions. It is located under the move notation/game score.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-05 12:42:02)
Adjudication
Hello again Andrew, thanks for discussing this interesting point that is a part of the discussion about the Dead Man's Defence. See this thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=2828
There is no way to avoid a player to last a game IMO... New rules first mean new ways to get round it and too many rules should be avoided. I still think there are some 'tricky' moves in tablebases, at least beautiful moves so it should be up to the winner to call the referee or not and it should be up to the referee to adjudicate it or not.
Maybe time will make me change my mind, but not today I think :)
Best, Thibault
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 20:56:31)
Philip Roe
You're joking here right? I made a benign and topical post trying to explain things for some people. I attacked or provoked NOBODY. You started in on me with this "for you happy centaur" remark that was completely uncalled for and unsolicited.
I can't seem to win with the forum here. Even when I make an innocent post I get insulted and harassed. Then when I defend myself the Admin sides against me like clockwork, lol.
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 (2007-09-07 02:44:00)
And the winner is...
??? :)
Thanks to all, the quotes file will be updated soon... It was a very pleasant and imaginative thread ! .. to be continued ? :)
Christophe Czekaj (2007-09-07 12:44:20)
To Jason
Hello Jason !
Its just a question to have the possibility to play correspondence chess (for fun, not neccesarily studying or analysis, just the pleasure of finding moves, ideas (you know, what Bronstein called imagination) not rating, not to be classified as expert, or I dont know what
) with people without computer. If they lie and use computer ; OK, we cant be sure, but Im certain you could accept that some players can trust other players when they say they dont use computers. For example, I trust Philip when he said this, its just a question of being a gentleman. If there are cheaters ok, so what
Rybka will win
And I dont undestand your topic about class of players : I hope Ive the right of posting some commentaries on this forum, despite the fact being largely behind you in term of rating
I think we can still play chess without computer, and with rating or not, its the same game for me. Philip and I just think it could be kind to play with other players with a kind of gentlemans agreement. Sorry if it bother you
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 23:27:47)
Who will win?
South Africa
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-08 04:00:17)
Who will win?
South Africa is a serious candidate for sure... France just lost his first match to Argentina (17-12) :/
Mark Noble (2007-09-11 08:02:09)
France are a JOKE
Well as to France losing opening game
that would have to be the easy cash I have won in a long time since they have only beaten Argentina once in the last 8 games .
As to the winners All BLACK's all the way!
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-10 21:05:48)
chess engines
Following Thibault's comments about Rybka having changed correpondence chess I purchased the rybka engine. It is a very good program but I dont see how it has affected cc anymore than Fritz.
I have used Fritz 8 and 9 extensively for analysis and have until now no experience of other engines. Although I have just downloaded Toga II which is an excellent engine (and free!!) if anyone wants a free engine this is a top program that downloads in seconds and is up there with the commercial programs.
I noticed Rybka seems more conservative evaluating positions than Fritz. However it has blind spots. For an example taken from the current chess cafe "Yasser Annotates" (Ivanchuk Seirawan 1990)after 1 e4 c6 2 d4 d5 3 Nc3 dxe 4 Nxe Bc5 5 Ng3 Bg6 6 h5 h6 7 Nf3 Nd7 8 h5 Bh7 9 Bd3 Bxd 10 Qxd Ngf6 11 Bf4 e6 12 0-0-0 Be7 13 c4 b5 Black offers a pawn my reaction is not to take - otb I would never take. Why open the c file for black and grabbing the pawn by Qxb5 looks risky with only 2 pawns to cover the king and open b and c files. Fritz prefers 14 c5 with 14 cxd followed by 15 Kb1 as 2nd choice after 3 minutes ply 15 depth
Rybka r chooses 14 cxb cxb then 15 Qxb5?! even after 1 hour at ply 19! In cc I would look at 14cxb and 15 Qxb5 to see if I could survive and win with the extra pawn but working with Fritz it takes but a few minutes to see black has compensation after 15 Qxb5 Nd5. When 16 Be5 gives an inferior endgame for white and 16 Bd2 Rb8 gives an attack for black. The top professionals work with a range of programs Fritz, Junior, Shredder, Hiracs and Rybka to generate ideas.
Does anyone have any views on these other program's characteristics?
Graham Woodcock (2007-09-11 16:59:01)
My two penneth
I've never used a chess programme to help me (as anyone that's played me will probably be able to tell!).
Unless there's money at stake, what's the point?
I would have thought that the idea of playing chess online is to keep your mind active and to improve your own play by playing more frequently...but I guess there are probably a few cyber warriors around that will do whatever it takes to win... But I don't see what pleasure they can take from winning if some highly advanced chess engine has done all the work.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-12 03:35:50)
Translation : Sponsored links
Could anyone speaking deutsch, italian or spanish confirm or correct the following translations (babelfish) ? .. Thanks in advance :)
"Sponsored links" :
- Deutsch : geförderte Verbindungen
- Italian : Collegamenti patrocinati
- Spanish : Acoplamientos patrocinados
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 13:30:09)
Gino Figlio
... takes the lead after two nice wins :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=13151
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=13153
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
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-16 05:29:56)
Kramnik
I fancy Kramnik to win because his black game is a bit more solid and his white openings are more flexible than anand. Anands game 1 for example was a bit ropey. On the other hand he scored a cracker against Aronian as black.
Gino Figlio (2007-09-16 19:32:15)
Schuster-Figlio
If you think for a moment that I would have pretended to win a match with 8 draws then you don't know me well.
That would have been a dishonor...
The match is not over anyway.
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...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-17 16:18:47)
Schuster-Figlio
I have... Definitely I don't like the "speed up" formula, that happened ie. in the Kramnik vs. Topalov match, it changes the nature of the match and adds some more 'random' factors, up to sudden death - White must win - which is no more chess. In our case this wouldn't be correspondence chess anymore (added to potential difficulties to play blitz games).
Anyway no rule can break the tie "properly", at least this rule allows the strongest player by rating (in case of 8 draws) to move to the next stage, which is quite logical IMO.
Wayne Lowrance (2007-09-19 00:56:11)
Missing game(s)
I seem to think at least one of my games does not appear in "My games" tab. I see no result for game A_000012 5866. I dunno if this is the game or not. But anyhow I am used to seeing one gamer in the 5k series listed when I click "My games" tab. Hope there are not others as I have many games going. In my Ficgs database of games I do not anotate a win or loss.
Help please Thibault......thank you Wayne
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-20 13:58:05)
chessfriends
I remember that chessfriends.com used to have the opposite rule ie the player with the lower elo advanced in the knockout. I guess their reasoning was if your better rated you should be able to prove it. As Thibault mentioned he may be a victim of the FICGS rule in his match against Farit Balabaev. He has the higher TER and his opponent as taken 4 draws as white by repeating the same 15 move sequence in his 4 white games (1 e4 c5 2 Nf3 d6 3 d4 cxd 4 Nxd Nf6 5 Nc3 a6 6 Bg5 e6 7 f4 Qb6 8 Qd2 Qxb2 9 Rb1 Qa3 10 f5 Nc6 11 fxe6 fxe6 12 Nxc6 bxc6 13 Be2 Be7 14 0-0 0-0 15 Rb3 Qc5+ 1/2 1/2) Not the greatest advert for cc games! It requires cooperation for this to happen although its dangerous for black to deviate after 9 Rb1. Still there are perfectly viable alternatives IMO in the Najdorf against 6 Bg5 other than this line. I suggest going to a 2 game mini match play off series at 5 days reserve and 1 day per move increment until there is a win. This would provide incentive to go for a result for the higher rated player in the main match. I would retain the lower rated player wins rule for decisive games (but overall draw) for the main match but leave it equal for the playoffs.
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!
Andrew Stephenson (2007-09-21 18:52:24)
Tie Breaks
Farit just to clarify things, you lost your drawn match against Peter Schuster (despite being the higher rated player) because of the rule that the lower rated player wins in the event of a drawn match, where there has been at least one win by the lower rated player. So the 4 draws by you are drawing attention to the problems with the tie break by rating approach (albeit the higher rated player wins if all games drawn part of the rule) Well at least we understand your side of it - that you were actually making a point.
Wolfgang I understand the rule is a compromise no need to cry however surely its right to review the experience and see if we can improve? The problem I have, based on the experience, is that it just makes the site look bad and silly to have 4 identical 15 move games. Thats not chess - in my view its absurd. So lets examine the experience and refine the process. A 2 game play off series at a very fast cc time rate ( 1-5 day reserve + 1 day increment)would, I believe, get a result. Its still a compromise because the time for cc is very short. At the same time lets re -think having the championship every 6 months idea - I think thats a big factor behind Thibault's tie break by rating rule. Its leading to overcrowding and its pretty hard to follow perhaps 1 every 9 months or year? Incidentally Thibault how do you break the tie if both have the same TER? Just a thought!
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-21 22:00:03)
Tie Breaks
There are 8-games matches since the very first round, so this extra delay would happen each round (1d+1d/move means at least 4 months, also add vacation) :/ I think too long cycles is a problem. With the current formula a complete cycle (including the final match against previous winner) lasts 2 years and a half. If we add tie breaks, it could last between 4 & 5 years and more players may forget to play next rounds... I don't feel it, definitely.
Garvin Gray (2007-09-22 06:25:41)
walk in the park
Tough match for Rybka
Are you sure about that? Zappa programmers have only worked on upgrading the engine for eight days and before that they were in 'retirement' with no major updates coming out since Zanzibar. Zappa has admitted that 'Zappa Mexico' wont be much of an upgrade from Zanzibar.
Rybka has been upgraded and tuned many times since Zappa won the WCC. I think Rybka should win this match 6-4 or 7-3 with no losses.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-25 22:00:51)
4,5 - 2,5
Another draw today (I read "wild draw and missed win from Zappa"). It seems that Zappa is going to win the match... but is this result significant as the engines worked on 8 cores ?! .. Hard to say, I just wonder if/how Rybka's performances can be improved on such computers...
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 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...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-09-28 03:43:36)
Zappa wins the match
Finally Zappa beats Rybka 5,5-4,5, which is quite an enormous surprise !
Many interesting discussions followed in forums about chess engines programming, Zappa & Rybka strengths and weaknesses, how search & evaluation functions influence each other... and luck :
http://64.68.157.89/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=147594&t=16732
http://www.hiarcs.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=254&start=105
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-01 05:20:50)
Tablebases : Mate in 517+
While I was checking some positions in 6-pieces tablebases, I was wondering what was the longest win found in tablebases so far...
I found the answer here (new record established in May 2006) :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endgame_tablebase#Endgame_theory
"For some years, this position held the record for the longest computer-generated forced mate. (Otto Blathy had composed a mate in 292 moves problem already in 1889.) However, in May 2006, Bourzutschky and Konoval discovered a KQNKRBN position with an astonishing DTC of 517 moves. This was more than twice as long as Stiller's maximum, and almost 200 moves beyond the previous record of DTC = 330 for a position of KQBNKQB_1001."
What I just can't understand is how is it possible not to know the DTM (Distance To Mate) while knowing the DTC (Distance To Conversion) ?!
Anyway, amazing !
.. Any taker ? :)
Hannes Rada (2007-10-01 20:21:51)
Kasparov CC
If I remember correctly Garry once stated that he could win such a title easily, because he is superior in analyzing chess positions.
Could be true, or not ?
van Oosterom - Kasparov
at CC conditions, what is your prediction ?
Maybe Garry has an advantage because he can analyze deeper within a specific time unit due to his superior chess knowledge and experience.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-02 19:29:47)
Fork
A zugzwang may occur before a draw (maybe even a win ? :)) .. Is there an equivalent for a fork at Go ?
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 !
Andrew Stephenson (2007-10-04 20:45:13)
Schuster win
Witty ending to the Schuster Figlio game. I always feel very uncomfortable as black in this line if e5 or c5 cannot be played. So 15 ..c5!? might do the trick eg 16 cxd5 exd5 17 dxc5 Bxc5 18 Nxd5 Nxd5 19 Rxd5 Bxe3 and it looks like black can hold this. It also gives some point to 6..Be4 inducing f3 and creating a weakness on e3 - although I have never understood why black wants to make white play f3 anyway!
Gaetano Laghetti (2007-10-05 16:39:21)
2 draws ??
not exactly!
The last game (the 15th) was not a draw but a win for our team:
Laghetti-Prokopenko 1-0
Regards
Gaetano
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-05 17:04:41)
Match
It is still possible for our team to win... Let's wait & see :)
Garvin Gray (2007-10-07 19:59:31)
winner :)
I am claiming 1st place in the southern hemisphere division :)
Garvin Gray (2007-10-15 17:49:02)
slippery slope
Sorry to say, but I am against this re-instatement. Main reason is the slippery slope effect.
Also what happens if in another game a player claims that they moved the wrong knight and the opponent says too bad or your responsible for moving correctly?
The recriminations and ill feeling could result.
Sorry but Peter is responsible for the moves he makes and his actions towards those moves.
It should be a double win to igame.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-16 22:46:45)
More translations
I need help to translate the following in german & spanish ! Thanks :)
- "Please click on the piece to move"
Spanish : "Haga click sobre la pieza que desea mover"
German : ?
- "Please click on the destination square"
Spanish : "Haga click sobre la casilla a la que desea mover"
German : ?
Edwin Dabbaghyan (2007-10-20 11:14:42)
where?
Hello everyone...just got back from a 3 drunk days cruise trip and am quite beatable ;)....where exactly do we play the freestyle? on a server client or on this website like any other game? Hej, William, Eros and Alberto...good luck friends:)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-20 13:19:52)
where?
Hello Edwin :) .. Of course it is played here, like any other game (interface is a bit different for games played in less than 1 day).
Have a good tournament & good luck to all !
Edwin Dabbaghyan (2007-10-20 14:06:54)
my game?
Hello...where is my game? I can't see my game....
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 :)
Thibault de Vassal (2007-10-21 01:36:54)
Kasparov on Bill Maher
After Kasparov's win on Colbert, Bill Maher was checkmated also :)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4194
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4191
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 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 (2007-10-24 14:05:27)
Wolf Blitzer on CNN's Late Edition
Kasparov : "In Russia we are not fighting win elections, we are fighting to have elections."
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4198
Fighting from the opposite side of the earth, quite good strategy :)
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
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-02 00:13:09)
Change in class M rapid
Thibault I dont like that change at all. When I signed the entry was 2200. I do not like that to be lowered to 2100/ I think the division was just fine. Ive been busting my butt to get to that 2200 window. Would you please remove me from the waiting list. Thank you
wayne
Michael Mueller-Toepler (2007-11-06 16:28:01)
FICGS freestyle cup
For more players:
The winner is qualified for:
FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
Regards
Michael - muetoe
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-08 15:51:12)
The Bilbao rule
Two interesting articles published by Chessbase about the Bilbao rule effects in chess and football (Win : 3 points, Draw : 1 point, Loss : 0 point)
This issue will probably be discussed again and again, as FIDE world chess championship rules... or FICGS chess wch tie break rule :)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4232
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4237
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 :)
Wayne Lowrance (2007-11-15 17:37:28)
Not 400 window tho
I think a window of 400 as suggested is bad, too wide...a player of 1900 playing a 2400 player is not conducive for advancement of the 2400 player, hence he would not enter.
for example to be honest, I a 2200+ player would not enter such a category, just being honest.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-22 04:23:12)
IECG chess server
Hi Dinesh !
The server is not really down but I can't login, so Ortwin may be working on the site...
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-23 01:07:30)
IECG server
I'm sure that Ortwin makes his possible and clocks will most likely be corrected.. We should consider this time as free vacation :)
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 (2007-11-26 23:36:46)
Wilkes-Barre Furor
The next thematic tournament is a very interesting line of the Sicilian poisoned pawn variation : 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 Qb6 8.Qd2 Qxb2 9.Rb1 Qa3 10.e5
See in Waiting list >> Special chess tournaments
If you want to play a "one-game" match with Ilmars, you may try in Advanced chess tournaments >> Bronze lightning .. and play Traxler, if you don't care about your blitz chess rating :) .. or Thematic lightning but with entry fee & prize (10 E-Points) & White must win rule.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-11-27 22:37:57)
Baduk and chance : 1dan in LG cup final
A Go player ranked 1 dan is about 800 elo points below a 9 dan player (whatever the ranking system ?!), meaning about no chance to win a game against such an opponent, right ?! .. How is it possible to see a 1 dan player at this level in one of the main Go tournaments in the world ?
Of course everything can happen in a Go game, but I suppose it is not the case during a whole tournament...
From IGN Goama newsletter - http://gogame.info
"An interview with Han Sanghoon, 1-dan, the first 1-dan in Go history, who entered the final match of the World Go Championship (LG cup)
- Congratulations! What was the most difficult game in this tournament?
- The last one with On Sojin, 4-dan. It was really close finally and I think, that I was slightly behind until the endgame stage
- You became a professional about 1 year ago. Did you think that you can reach the final match of the World Go Championship so quickly?
- I remember that it was very hard to become a professional. I was almost 18 and it was my last chance to win the qualification among inseis. Of course, I did not think, that I can show good results quickly. I was surprised, that professional tournaments are not much harder than the insei league :)
- What are your weakest and strongest parts in Go?
- I am weak at the opening, but I feel myself confident in middlegame fights. Usually I try to defend my groups solidly, before fighting
- Who is the hardest opponent for you?
- Yun Junsang, 6-dan. I lost him twice and feel that he is much stronger than me. Also his Go style is very impressive
- What do you think about your final match with Lee Sedol, 9-dan. How big are your chances?
- I never played him before, but I saw lot of his game records and I know that Lee Sedol, 9-dan is much stronger than me. Any way, I will try to win the match! Usually I am not afraid of the star opponents at all!"
Pekka I. Turakainen (2007-11-27 22:44:48)
Can u figure this out?
Some time ago we played a game of chess with my friend and after 66. move reached the following position:
6k1/5b2/8/4q3/1K6/8/1RR5/8 w - - 0 1
We agreed that it's a draw.
No it isn't! It's white's move and the material looks balanced, but black will have his win after 53 moves (if white has an ideal defence).
This is what the almighty Nalimov says.
Don't bother to check this out with your multiprocessor chess software...it'll probably take months before it finds the right combination.
What to speak of the poor human brain.
Feeling humble now....
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-03 02:52:41)
... unless it uses evil
A famous french politician said - in the original version (with french accent) :) .. "The Yes needs the No to win.. against the No ! (Jean-Pierre Raffarin)"
Wolfgang Utesch (2007-12-04 19:26:05)
Looking for the opponent of ....
...the winner of first knockout final: Gino Figlio! Congratulations!!!!!
Who will win the first round robin final?
Garvin Gray (2007-12-05 11:10:40)
Downloading individual games
I used to be able to download each individual game to my desktop so I could save it and analyse using a chess engine.
In firefox, I cant do that anymore. Each time I try and download an individual game, the window just changes over to the text pgn, instead of downloading the game to the desktop.
I have looked through my tools- options section in firefox and cant solve the problem.
Has anyone else had this problem?
Possible fixes?
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 ?
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2007-12-13 12:06:00)
Just an idea ...
What ever categories we decided, maybe we could add in some cases a "wild card", I mean, allowing one player with lower rating.
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-14 15:40:44)
Tablebases on R+B vs. N+N
Good to know this endgame (Rook + Bishop wins against 2 Knights in 150 to 220 moves in the longest cases - tablebases 6 pieces), as there's no draw granted after 50 moves without any capture according to FICGS rules.
Karjakin, Sergey (2694) - Shirov, Alexei (2739)
World Cup Khanty-Mansiysk RUS (6.3), 11.12.2007
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4322
Garvin Gray (2007-12-15 17:29:41)
tablebase wins
If I understand this correctly, does this mean now that if any position is given as a win by tablebase and the win is over 50 moves, the 50 move draw rule will be ignored?
Thibault de Vassal (2007-12-17 02:42:31)
FIDE world cup / WCH
Gata Kamsky (2714) just won the FIDE world cup final match against Alexei Shirov (2739) : 2.5 - 1.5 in Khanty-Mansiysk (Russia).
According to a recent FIDE rule, he should challenge the former world champion : Veselin Topalov. So he may play the reigning world champion after that (if he wins of course, if Anand keeps his title until there and if I understood well, not sure). Okokok...
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 (2007-12-22 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.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-06 20:27:23)
IGAME wins the match !
Congratulations to IGAME.RU team for winning the match ! :) They scored over than 25 points out of 50 already...
Thanks also for the great fair play !
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-07 07:37:49)
holidays and forfeit
Yes wolfgang he will forfeit although he still has time left he is on holday until Feb 1 and the clock will still run. I never understoofd the logic of running the clock and allowing holidays. This rule is misguided and unecessary I wish Thibault would get rid of it. I think victor does not realise he will forfeit and this will lead to a set of stupid losses I do not see how that helps good chess to be played nor do I see allowing clocks to be stopped would prolong the games to an unnacceptable length. Clearly a very unsatisfactory situation.
Michael Aigner (2008-01-07 14:03:08)
Possible to stop the clock?
I do not know if Viktor did not know his clock will keep running during his vacation - but if so and this would be the reason he is ging to loose his games,i would prefer to stop his clock and keep him playing the tournament.
Nobody has anything to win when he is loosing on time because he did not know this (slightly unlogical) rule - but to loose a chance to play a very strong player and an interesting tournament.
Would this be possible - OK with all other players of the tournament - OK with Thibbault - OK with Viktor ????
Hannes Rada (2008-01-07 20:04:20)
Stop the clock
I agree.
It does not make sense to get a win without playing. Because we are here to play chess .... :-)
However I saw that the game with H. Ingersol is already over ...
So I would stop the clock, if every participant in this group agrees.
But we need a more simple solution concerning the reflection time.
I would propose:
After 10 days without playing a single move: 1st warning, after 20 days: 2nd warning, afer 30 days: the game is automatically lost for that player.
Warnings should be sent to both involved players be email.
During 30 or 40 days holiday during a year the refelection time will be stopped.
That's how it worked at chessfriend.com and this is in my opinion the best and simplest solution.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-08 19:04:50)
Today...
... most probably ;)
By the way, more accurately the "WC-2 knockout final"..
In the WC-1, it seems Gaetano is now in good place to win the round-robin final and to play Gino, who won the knockout final, let's see how the last game Pichelin-Laghetti will finish, then the first final match will start :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_13145.html
Andrew Stephenson (2008-01-10 07:31:34)
Thanks
Thanks to Wolfgang for pointing it out to Thibault for reacting so quickly and flexibly and to the players for being so sporting - chess is the winner!
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 (2008-01-15 20:29:21)
winner
That's right, Robert Mueller qualifies for Stage 3.
Konrad Hornung (2008-01-16 07:11:38)
Games Database
Having a user friendly games database, showing the board and position and listing the options of moves played in that position by users of the database, with the option to filter games below a particular rating e.g. 2000, is my next idea to improve this site.
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.
Robert Mueller (2008-01-17 18:43:01)
FWIW
I am sorry for Peter that he was not qualified for the third round. Yes, he did win our game, but due to a blunder on my side when I lost a piece on move 4 because I read his move wrong. I am sorry for Peter, but the rules are quite clear about the TER qualifier.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-01-25 11:59:22)
Rating rules
Hi Thibault,
will games rated also if one player withdraws without any move (or only a few moves < 10)?
I can understand that the withdrawing player should be penalized by negative rating, but not if the "winner" will get positive rating! Otherwise the FIGCS ratings will be a farce or better a gamble!
i.e. Ingersol - Popov 8:0 without any move by Popov (TER 2463) in WC quarter final 4-000003
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-25 16:20:55)
10 moves rule
Hi Wolfgang, of course the 10 moves rule applies to the winner (the withdrawing player will lose points in all cases) !
"Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating) or in global forfeit cases against the same opponent, ie. 8-games matches, but games where an advantage is obvious."
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#withdrawals
Ivan Pljusnin (2008-01-27 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 ! :)
Hao Nhien Nguyen (2008-01-30 10:04:16)
Under-10-move checkmate
What about under-10-move checkmate? Will the winner get the point?
Nicola Lupinacci (2008-01-30 12:18:55)
Under-10-move checkmate
I think checkmate under 10 moves will be counted in rating variations, becouse if you checkmate a player you do not win automatically the game: he has to resign.
I don't now perfectly how rating works but in my opinion rating variation is not cuonted only in games that endend before the 10th move with one player losing on time
Is it correct?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-01-30 19:31:12)
Under-10-move checkmate
To resign or not to resign, is that the question ? :) .. Such case is quite unlikely to happen : If a player resigns in less than 10 moves, it is most probably a forfeit, if the game is lost anyway his rating is 'most' probably 350 points below his oppoent's rating, at least it should, so this game won't be rated for the winner, too easy :)
Nicola Lupinacci (2008-01-30 21:40:50)
Something strange inside...
I have played 2 CHESS BULLET BRONZE at 21.00 today (unfortunatly I win both without moving).
The first game appear as "Game 12143", and the second as "Game 18538".
Something strange inside... :D
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-04 19:33:56)
CCT 10
Rybka and Naum win the CCT10, Rybka finished 2nd in the IPCCC 2007, scoring 5.5/7, behind of Hiarcs. Rybka won another match against GM Joel Benjamin... and Rybka 3.0 should be available soon.
Some interesting threads in Rybka forum (Anthony Cozzie about Zappa, Strelka, Rybka 3)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=3172
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=3119
Andrey Sumets (2008-02-05 00:17:35)
///
Another two wins for our team.
Congratulations to owl (Nikolay Doynikov) and ayunusov1(Adkham Yunusov):)
just three games to go with at least 2.5 points in our favour:)
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 01:41:22)
WCH candidates final tie break rule
Good question... Well, it seems coherent : WCH rules favour ratings, it is very unlikely to happen that the knockout cycle winner's rating is inferior to the round-robin cycle winner's one, anyway the rules clearly favour the highest TER, which is the one of the knockout cycle winner at the beginning of the cycle.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 02:59:03)
Tie break rules
Yes knock out winner likely to have higher rating. However the round robin winner might have increased rating in getting to the candidate final. For example in 000002 Harry Ingersol could draw all his games in the knockout final and drop from his rating of TER 2555 and go through to candidate final (his future rating at the moment predicted at 2493)The other contestant Wolfgang has a predicted rating at 2489. Whereas Daniel Brunsteins could put in a strong showing winning the round robin final and improve his TER of 2476 (future rating estimated at 2487)Its quite possible that he could go into a candidates match with the higher TER and lose where all the games are drawn under the present rule. Why not just keep to the higher TER winner for an even result with draws and the lower TER tie break winning in a tie where the ganes were not all drawn
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-07 03:43:44)
Tie break rules
This set of rules favour the players with the highest TER at the start of the cycle (or CER - cycle entry rating), who play the knockout cycle, anyway the challenge for a player coming from the round-robin cycle - so difficult already - is just even more interesting :) .. looking at the first candidates final, I'm not sure at all who's favourite according to these rules. Xavier Pichelin is a dangerous player with an under-evaluated rating yet, he had to win (several) games in all stages of the round-robin tournament and he did it well, now quite the same situation but only one win could put him in a favourable position. He's used to this challenge, I think it is just more challenging and interesting this way. But the main idea is always to favour the highest tournament (here I should say cycle) entry rating.
"Victory belongs to who wants it more" (Bobby Fischer)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 09:33:55)
cycle entry rating??
Thibault now your really confusing me?? I do not think there is any concept of cycle entry rating being followed in your WC system! In the knockout stages players ratings change so there entry rating changes in different stages. eg Wolfgang entered the quarter finals for 000002 with a TER of 2460 he was successful (against you)and played the semi final with improved TER 2523 and for the the knockout TER was the same 2523 with Harry had TER with 2456 for quarters but went to semis with TER 2459 and for knockout final his TER changed again to 2555. Now if CER is operating Thibault, the knockout final match should contain entry ratings at the start of the cycle ...this is extremely important because that would have wolfgang on 2460 and Harry on 2456 which will make a difference as it reverses the TER at present showing in that match leading to opposite results in the event of a tie. The same occurs for the stages and round robin finals - updated ratings are used for tie breaks at each stage. Anyway for the next cycle why do you not just change the candidate tie break rule to make it consistent with all the other tie break rules ie based on TER at the time the stage commences. It does not make any sense to give an advantage to say the no 8 rated player at the start of the cycle who goes into knockout over the no 9 rated player going into the stage and round robin. Both players will benefit from improved TER during the course of the cycle before they meet in the candidates final where there strength at that entry point should be a tie breaking factor and not where there rating was 1 year or more years earlier- the more so as their changed ratings since will/may have been used as tie breakers along the way anyway. Either that or introduce cycle entry ratings concept and keep ratings fixed for the duration of the cycle for tie break purposes for all matches and stages!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-02-07 17:05:08)
WCH candidates final tie break rule
I understand your point of view but I see no problem with this "CER rule" at stage 4. It looks 'logical' to me, firstly because this stage is not included in what is called the knockout cycle (just like stage 5, with another rule), then because the round-robin winner still appears like the challenger in this match.
Now we may have a poll on this issue and continue to discuss it, why not...
Should the same TER rule apply at stage 4 like in the first 3 stages of the knockout cycle ? Who is favourable to the current rule ?
Andrew Stephenson (2008-02-07 18:50:03)
Candidates final tie break rule
I vote for 1 consistent single tie break system for all matches and round robins: player higher TER at the start wins if all games drawn loses if not all games drawn. The tie break rule is complex enough without suddenly switching. To answer your 2 points Thibault:
1) The round robin winner is a sort of "challenger" to the knock out winner thus its right to give the knock out a tie break win if all games drawn and require the round robin winner to win a game to go through on a tie. But the whole process is a method of determining a challenger for the WCC not a challenger to one of the top eight.
2) Tie break system is different for WCC challenger ie champ keeps title in the event of a draw. Well this isdifferent and its easy to understand that its necessary to beat the champ to take the title. This difference does not explain having a different tie break system in the candidates - there is no challenge here and no title at stake.
Each cycle is a challenger selection process and we need 1 consistent tie break method for each stage.
Philip Roe (2008-02-09 21:28:14)
Simple fix
Or, as I realised about ten seconds after posting, I can just maximise the analysis window to hide the ads...
Iouri Basiliev (2008-02-12 19:54:37)
match is close to the end
Very nice win by GM Andrey Sumets. Positional exchange sacrifice 22. Rxd5! was very impressive.
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.
Nicola Lupinacci (2008-02-16 14:30:28)
Unfortunately, Kramnik
Unfortunately I think Kramnik is the current champion, and if he lose his title against Anand or the winner of topalov-kamsky match, i think he will continue to proclame that he is the world chess champion...
Garvin Gray (2008-02-17 11:43:54)
Anand
The official answer is Anand after winning Mexico.
This has even been admitted by Kramnik.
The match between Anand and Kramnik is for the official world championship, so once again the crown in on the line, this time in the 'right' format of a match. Only 12 games though with rapid tiebreaks.
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-03-18 08:00:21)
Rapid categories
Well thibault we had a long discussion about this with a lot of input and agreement you stated that you would implement the following:
"Rapid M (2100+), Rapid A (1900-2100), Rapid B (1700-1900) ... ~200"
you have completely gone back on this and your new range is hopeless - you will get 1900 and maybe some 2000 players thats it nowhere for 2000 +_ - 2300 players to go
Please check the archives reconsider and implement the range agreed to
Wayne Lowrance (2008-03-19 05:43:02)
rapid Categories
Thibault you can never make everyone happy.
I would like to have seen a rapid rating starting at 2200. But never mind, I wont be entering in any for quite sometime until hopefully when I get to the 2300 barrier. Gonna be very difficult. Impossible in any of the rapid tourney windows.
Wayne
Vjacheslav Perevozchikov (2008-03-27 11:14:31)
Ratings
I have played more than 40 games. 30 wins & only 1 loss (misclick :)), and don't understand one simple thing: why my rating is so small - 1867 points. I saw other members with much worse performance & much more rating? What's wrong here?
Thanx
Garvin Gray (2008-03-27 15:38:36)
??
What were the ratings of your opponents. It is your performance rating that matters, not your win loss record.
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-04-06 10:53:43)
Also...
Why you have to wait over 30 days for someone to resign a position in which they are checkmated(!) is also beyond my comprehension. Allowing a time period is fair enough but there should also be a limit.
Lincoln Tomlin (2008-04-06 11:47:44)
...
Julien. If games miss the next rating cycle because 1) someone cannot be polite enough to resign a game they clearly no longer have any interest in or 2) resign a game they have already lost because they are in Checkmate and 3) because these games are not included in the next cycle you are 1 or 2 games short of a rating allowing you to participate against stiifer opposition then 4) yes it is a problem and as mentioned above unsporting behaviour.
;-)
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.
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
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
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-01 19:50:21)
Marc
Thanks for the informative reply! I do the interactive walk thing you mentioned its very useful though you need reasonable power to have several engines running at once - this you have! I am afraid I dont know how to organise test matches but sounds good. same with Rybka randomiser I have the engine but no idea how to use the randomiser and get it to play itself. 2 wins from the c3 is good as I think it gives white nothing ..but in the line I chose I noticed that after Gelfand (as black) got a draw against Adams with this line Adams repeated it aginst Kasparov who varied. So I guess Adams had an improvement perhap it was what you played? - as black has to find some very accurate moves . Incidentally I very nearly played 5..g5!!? which is really interesting but as my other games were promising decided to settle for taking a draw
I like the Basman-Sale and although I have given up e4 in cc will play e4 if we play again as I have some ideas against it. Thanks for the reply
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-05-02 15:59:02)
Showdown time
It seems we should have a (deeper!) look at WC-Quarter Final Riccio-Zubac - it is showdown time!
The both last games are equal for all the 33 moves and Riccio has just to draw for the match win - easy? I'm not sure.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-05-02 21:32:37)
Showdown Number 2
WC-Knockout Final Ingersol-Utesch: Ingersol has just to draw the both last games. Most games in this final has been much better for him, but not good enough for a win. And at the end there is a single game with a very complicate position (#17894) which is making the situation extremly thrilling! No one can be sure what will happen.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-05-03 07:15:10)
Game 17894
Hi Andrew, I analyzed this position without an absolute certain result yet. White is clear better, but the way of win is very, very small (if it exist). Enjoy looking what will happen in this game next time!
Josef Riha (2008-05-03 15:48:18)
Arena
Hello Andrew, try out the following:
Open the Engine-Paramter dialogue of Rybka and then:
Display PV Tips...on
Win Percentage to Hash Usage...on
Display Current Move...on
Preserve Analysis...on
For more information look at www.rybkachess.com and click on Parameters FAQ on the left side of the screen.
With best wishes, Josef.
Jason Repa (2008-05-04 08:17:16)
From??
FYI,
5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game.
and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-05 11:07:56)
Chess Titans
I just played my first games versus Chess Titans on Windows Vista :> .. what a joke, a way to tell Vista customers they are smart ? :) Ok, Microsoft's goal wasn't to rivalize with Chessbase engines or Rybka but they could have chosen another name... The program most probably don't reach a 1800 level.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-05 14:18:51)
Will follow
Yes actually I did not find the way either - but got the feeling their might be a problem like win somewhere!! Good luck to both players
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-05-05 16:14:09)
Amazing ....
..., solution for some variants is covered by a problem-like position, where engines can't help.
I found it after analyzing this position and the forced way about 40 hours.
A lttle bit knowledge and a lot of work and luck, that is the mixture you need for a win in high level correspondence chess game.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-05 19:26:29)
Luck ?!
> A lttle bit knowledge and a lot of > work and luck, that is the mixture
> you need for a win in high level
> correspondence chess game.
So you think that luck is an integral part of the game ?!
Such a statment and my chess world view collapses :-)
But sometimes I've the same strange feeling: chess is a game of luck !? :-)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 01:52:34)
Problem like win
Yes I thought so - I felt there was something there! Maybe it seems like luck because its not easy to explain how the answer is found it seems to be stumbled across.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 03:59:45)
Bird's Opening
Comparing 1.b4 to the Bird's Opening is just revealing your lack of chess knowledge. There have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today, as I've already mentioned to you. I wasn't making an argument that it should be someone's "main weapon", and I don't use it as a "main weapon" myself. Your original statement that I was contesting was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white".
I'm significantly higher rated than you are on this site, and I beat you quite easily when we played last year (only took me 33 moves if I recall), so I don't think you're any authority in cc either.
And you shouldn't equate a lack of an "opening advantage" with winning potential. Chess is a complex game, and its not about simply trying to make the best theoretical move all the time. It's about defeating your opponent. Theory suggests that 3.Nc3 is the strongest objective continuation for White against the French Defense, yet you still see 3.Nd2 quite regularly and even 3.e5 sometimes. There is more to think about than trying to get an opening advantage when it comes to winning a chess game. There is positional maneuvering and jockeying, as well as psychological factors to consider.
Additionally, trying to win the most games on an online correspondence chess server isn't everyone's goal. Some of us play real chess and use the information garnered here to assist us in our over the board play.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 04:24:31)
Bird's Opening
Here's a few more wins played on this site I obtained with 1.f4
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/birdsopening.htm
I've actually never lost a single game with this opening. Hardly seems like a "waste" to me.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-06 18:04:40)
From RIP
"would like to know how you refute the line which begin with 10..Bf5 instead of your opponent's move 10..Qe7. It usually continues with 10..Bf5 11.e4 Qe7 12.Bg2 0-0-0 and now what?" The answer is 13 Be3 and after Be6 14 Bf2 f5 15 Nd2 GM Kotronius tried 15..Qf7 16 0-0-0 Bxa2 when 17 e5 looks winning. Instead 16..fxe4! 17 Bxe4 Bxa2 and maybe black can hold with Na5 to come. Obviously 14 e5 is critical after 14 ..Bxe5 15 Bxc6 Rxh2 16 Rxh2 Bxg3+ 17 Rf2 black gets 2 pawns for a piece and an exposed king but white still has some winning chances. That leaves 13 ..Bd7 but the bishop is more passive and will probably end up going to e6 after f5 etc White has 14 Bf2 or 14 Kd1! intending Kc2 and Nd2 both look good. The problem for black is that his long term comp is the h file pressure which doesnt balance whites extra centre pawn. IMO
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 21:54:09)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"Obviously playing the From or the approach adopted by black in these games is not an accurate response!"
That's not obvious at all. What's obvious is that I beat you quite easily when you and I played cc so you're far from being any kind of authority whatsoever!
"1f4 does not lose or lead to a worse gane for white - it just allows black to get equality very quickly and easily"
I just finished trying to explain to you, in the way a young child should be able to understand, that there is more to think about in chess than trying to play what current theory considers to be the best try for an opening advantage. Yet here you are rambling on about the same nonsense you were in your previous posts. Was Fischer's 2.d3 against the French the objectively strongest move? Even against (and perhaps especially against) computers, it can sometimes be better to play sidelines or moves which may serve to confuse an opponent. Is the King's Indian Attack the best try for an opening advantage for White? Probably not. But it was used by Kasparov to defeat Deep Blue. If you still can't understand the concept I've been trying to teach you, after several posts, I don't know what more I can do for you. Just keep mindlessly playing what established theory tells you are the strongest lines,(without having even the incipience of an understanding as to why) and keep mindlessly trusting the evaluations your program gives you, and you'll keep getting CRUSHED by guys like me.
"1 f4 doesnt develop any piece (except the king!) and is a bit committal and slightly weakening of the king side."
After this statement, if I didn't know better, I would have thought you were someone who just learned how to set up the pieces. It might be one of the dumbest things I've ever heard anyone say. Does 1.e4 develop a piece? How about 1.d4? I suppose those moves are "a waste in cc" as well. We should all be playing 1.Nf3 and 1.Nc3 according to you, lol.
1.f4 grabs space. It stakes out influence both in the center and on the kingside. It effectively prevents 1...e5 (lest White goes into a dubious gambit system) as an alternative to other moves which achieve this. There are also other intangibles that are part of the picture, such as the psychological effect the move may have, the lack of preparation an opponent may have against it, etc. If you ever began to understand chess at a level beyond just plugging moves into a program, you might start to appreciate that allowing concessions (such as the slight weakening of the White kingside resulting from 1.f4) is all part of the game. Fischer's famous quote: "you gotta give squares to get squares" is a famous example. If allowing static liabilities were something to be avoided at all cost, you'd never see a Sicilian Scheveningen. It allows all sorts of weaknesses.
As for your so called "analysis". It's a complete joke! For starters, you're "analyzing" a game resulting from the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening. I line I've never played in my life, let alone here on FICGS. Is this how you try to win an argument/debate? By misrepresenting the facts? An intelligent person who genuinely felt that their argument had a leg to stand on, would simply take one of the 4 games I provided to you and do some analysis from there. Showing where Black could have improved. Then finally, after trying to "score points" with examples of the Leningrad Variation of the Bird's Opening, which I have never played, you post a game where White played poorly and lost to a lower rated player. As if that's never happened before in chess, lol. You don't even know enough to post the date of the game. I couldn't find this game on any of my databases(totally over 4,000,000 games), so if you didn't just make it up out of thin air, perhaps you got more wrong, such as the actual moves that were played, in addition to incorrectly stating:
"Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta."
Is it Black that lost here or White?
I took a brief look at the game, and it's hardly representative of proper play by White. 7.h3 was dubious at best. I prefer 7.Ne5. White then misses another opportunity to play the knight to e5 after 7...c5. Then 9.g4? is a gross thematic mistake. The only thing this game proves is that you're completely incapable of discussing chess in an intelligent way. Real chess players look for games that illustrate the critical lines for both sides, and try to arrive at some actual insights.
There is a reason I crushed you when we played cc last year.
Jason Repa (2008-05-06 23:08:30)
Bird Brain loses in 33 Moves!
"I think comparing f4 to b4 is quite reasonable"
You would. But we all know what happened to you when you and I played chess. I beat you in 33 moves. And we can see how not only do you not provide a game that's at least somewhat representative of the critical lines of the opening, but you can't even figure out when the supposed game was played, or whether or not White or Black won, and you only post a tiny fraction of it to boot. So evidently, what YOU think is not exactly to be regarded in high esteem here. Most people wouldn't have required my explanation where I described quite clearly how there have been many books written about the Bird's Opening. It has it's own discrete chapter in MCO, and its played in serious games in professional chess still today. They would already understand on their own, or would at least be intelligent enough to look up the information without having to have their hand held and have it spoon fed to them. But even after all this, you STILL don't understand. And you mention Christian Bauer who only pissed around with 1.b4 when he was playing opponents 400 elo LOWER RATED! One of his fabulous wins this year, that you were alluding to, was against 1861 rated Jacques Decamps, lol. The rest of the time they were 2100-2300. Has he ever played 1.b4 against another GM? (never mind super GM, as 1.f4 has many times been played against)
An opening move like 1.b4 might be fairly compared to something such as 1.g4. You won't see any dedicated chapter in MCO to either of those openings, but they're at least interesting enough to warrant some discussion in the "misc flank openings" chapter. 1.f4 might better be compared to something like Larsen's 1.b3. A sound sideline.
You want to talk about ratings? I've had to build up my rating from starting at the default of 1700, by winning 117 games (one of them against you), because I wasn't aware when I opened the account that the admin would let you start with your established elo. It's not surprising I played Sandor Porkulab a lot of times, as we both were very active playing a lot of games. Unlike you who started with the advantage of an inflated rating, which was somewhat tempered after that beating I gave you last year.
Sometimes in correspondence chess people abandon games and don't log in again. This was the case with Sandor Porkulab, although I had already beaten him a few times in games that were played to completion, and he wasn't better in any of the games that were abandoned. You're lying through your teeth there, or perhaps you're just too incompetent and dishonest to assess the games objectively. Why would Porkulab have 7 games against me where he was "level or better" when I had already beaten the guy every time we played before that? Did you even look at those games? Or is this just your pathetic way of trying to "score points" by using lies and deception? Additionally, the way the elo system works is that even if you do get a few easy points from say a win from an abandoned game that perhaps might have ended in a draw, that gain is quickly diluted and your rating naturalized as you play more games, because you win less points when you win,(or draw a higher rated opponent) and lose more when you lose (or draw a lower rated opponent), than you would have if you didn't receive those points. I've played many games since then and my rating here is probably where it would have been If I had not played Porkulab at all. Or if not already will soon be. So this is a pretty weak argument from you. A better argument is the fact that I CRUSHED you in 33 moves when we played. Porkolab at least gave me a decent fight when I played him. That's more than I can say for you. I felt like all I had to do was outsmart a machine when you and I played. I didn't have to worry about any human judgment from a real chess player getting in the way of my victory!
As for me getting a lost position after 17 moves against someone? For starters, I've played about 190 games here. What have you played.....32? And I think that's a testament to the fact that, unlike you, I'm a REAL chess player, so my goal here isn't to simply try to win the most online CC games to try to give myself some artificial illusion of ability. I don't always play what I consider to be the objectively best moves because I like to experiment and LEARN SOMETHING from the time I spend here. But having said that, I STILL outperform you greatly, and crushed you when we played last year. I'm also higher rated with a higher future rating, even though you had the advantage of started with a boosted initial rating. So much for what you "think" you know about the strongest moves in cc, lol.
And your future rating is only 2247, not 2300+. If you want to discuss what might happen after some of your current games are resolved, don't sell me short at 2316, which is already a given. Talk about the 2370+ I expect to have after some of MY current games are resolved. If you want to argue/debate with someone, learn to do it in an intelligent and fair way. So far all you've accomplished is to lose the paltry amount of credibility you once had.
Pablo Schmid (2008-05-07 00:34:11)
...
"Actually you're wrong once again Pablo. I know that you're only a 1912 rated player on this site"
Yeah, on this site... I began here as a 1700 (the first rating here) and I lost many games on time or because I was very busy and in a hurry to play a move without checking seriously to not lose on time. And corr rating does not mean everything. I play OTB too. Do you? I would be happy to play with you, even if you seems a bit arrogant when I see the way you speak in general.
And still, when I read that: "FYI,
5...Nc6 doesn't "put up more of a fight". It loses immediately to 6.Bxg5. I rarely have anyone play that badly against me in an online bullet game, let alone a cc game.
and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back.
" There is not discussion about material, you seems to judge the position on the fact that Black could not regain the pawn, so they are worse...
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-07 05:15:58)
f4 or not f4
1.0 Pablo here is a link you should read: http://www.avlerchess.com/chess-analysis/A_BRAND_NEW_Chessbase_9_for_sale_on_eBay_92649.html
2.0 Mr Repa here is a comment about the Dutch defense: "Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4
3.0 Mr Repa's chess federation of canada rating is listed as 2010 with an active rating of 1737. If he reaches am expected rating here of, by his account, 2370+ then everyone will be impressed particularly as Mr Repa says "I think I'm a bit out gunned here.I'm running BATTLE CHESS on a Commodore 64. I believe its running at 1.023 MHz."
4.0 It might be battle chess that accounted for the following cc (!) game as black he played against Torsten Opas 1.e4 e6 2.Nc3 d5 3.d4 Nf6 4.exd5 exd5 5.Nf3 Nc6 6.Bb5 Be7 7.Ne5 Bd7 8.O-O O-O 9.Bg5 h6 10.Bh4 a6 11.Bxc6 Bxc6 12.Re1 Re8 13.Qf3 Qd6 14.Re3 Qb4 15.Rae1 Bd8 16.Qf5 Qxd4 (oops)17.Bxf6 Bxf6 and the game is already lost
5.0 Together with his loss with 1f4 that he forgot about here is another example of the correct treatment of f4 by black against Mr Repa 1.f4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.e3 g6 4.b3 Bg7 5.Bb2 O-O 6.Be2 b6 7.O-O Bb7 8.d3 c5 9.Ne5 Nfd7 10.d4 e6 11.Nd2 Nc6 12.Nxc6 Bxc6 completely dead for white no prospects and duly drawn. Like I said 1 f4 is a waste at cc. I doubt we shall see Mr Repa use it again against a good opponent on this site.
6.0 All the games I referred to were white victories OTB with 1. f4 "Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny - thats the whole point. At cc Sengupta's play would not be impressive but otb it was effective. Incidentally the game was played in 2004 in India
8.0 1 g4 is like 1 b4? Well that is clearly wrong. There have been no GM - GM encounters with 1 g4 there have been several with 1 b4 including Topalov v Malakhatsov. Over 50 IM's and a dozen GM's have played 1 b4 very few have ever played g4. 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly.
9.0 "What is weird is that the conversation began with quite civil exchanges before tiny criticisms quickly escalated to nuclear mode despite my genuine and exhaustive efforts at diffusion and removal of misinterpretation" Can anyone guess who is being written about here on another chess site?
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:46:43)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 06:57:07)
Bird Brain loses in 33 moves!
I guess I shouldn't be surprised at the behavior of this lowlife. After all, I beat him in chess and beat him in debate. I also caught him RED-HANDED telling lies and exposed him for what he is. What else is a sniveling coward to do but dig up old flame wars on the internet from four years ago, that have not an iota of relevance to any of the topics being discussed here. I bet his parents are real proud of him, LOL!
"Black's ...f5 stakes a serious claim to the e4 square and looks towards an attack on White's kingside in the middlegame. However, it weakens Black's own kingside somewhat, and does nothing to contribute to Black's development" My point exactly about 1 f4"
Another typical tactic from a chronic liar....to change the very premise of what was being argued. I'll refresh your memory since you don't have the mental capability of remembering your own words. The statement you made was: "1 f4 at cc seems a waste of white". That is what I contested. I never disputed that there is some weakening of the kingside involved here. But some weakening of the kingside doesn't mean it's a poor opening choice. You're trying to win an argument with lies and misrepresentation. Try being honest and sticking to the facts for once in your life.
My otb tournament rating is currently 2010, but my active rating is not anywhere near what you're suggesting. I'm actually much stronger in both 30 minute active and blitz chess. I won more blitz tournaments in 2007 AND 2008 than anyone else in my region, ahead of 2 FM's. And my performance in active events is in the mid 2100's based on all the otb active events I've played in over the last 5 years.
In the region I play in we don't have many active events. So I've only played in 2 that were rated, and that was over a decade ago. The provisional ratings used were far below what everyone was worth (not just me). We had a strong FM who was competing at 1800 and change, while both his FIDE and national rating were in the neighborhood of 2300. Stranger things have happened in small clubs.
Did anyone notice how the coward won't discuss what HIS national otb rating is? We don't hear a word from him about that. Very telling indeed!
Then the little weasel reposts a game that he already posted in this thread earlier. Could it be that the poor loser whom I CRUSHED in chess, has run out of ammunition with which to compensate for the fact that he lost to me? I've lost 6 games, drew 59 and won 117 on FICGS, including the beating I gave to you. I beat you EASILY and I'm HIGHER RATED than you. Keep crying about that. Its entertaining.
Again, crybaby, if 1.f4 is a waste at cc, why did I gain rating points here playing 1.f4. And why did I beat you so easily at chess? I think I proved on the chess board, that you don't know what you're talking about. All you have is lies, slander, and random usenet group flame wars from 4 years ago. I have FACTS:
I BEAT YOU IN CHESS AND I'M HIGHER RATED THAN YOU ARE.
""Look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as black - a very strong 2600+ GM at the time - he continued 6 ..b6 7 h3 c5 8 Qe1 Bb7 9 g4 and lost to IM Sengupta." Alexseev lost and the criticisms of IM Sengupta's moves by Mr Repa are quite funny "
You're copying and pasting the same nonsense you posted earlier. Did you even read the words you typed? You're saying "look what happened to Evgeny Alexseev as Black", as if he's the one who lost. Then You switch it around and suggest that Evgeny Alexseev was White and say that he played 9.g4. Are you pretending to be this stupid or is this really how you are? As I said earlier, you're probably making the whole game up, or at least changing moves around, etc, because it doesn't appear anywhere that I could find, and you're still not bright enough to figure out how to post the whole game as you were asked to do earlier. It's a pretty sad state of affairs of that's the ONLY game you can think of to try to smear a legitimate and recognized opening such as Bird's Opening. Whoever played White played very poorly. I spelled out for you the moves that White played that were very poor. Did I use any words too complex for you to understand?
" 1 f4 has been championed by GM Jakubiec who is the only GM who has played it regularly"
This is also pure nonsense. There are MANY strong GM's (and super GM's)who haved played 1.f4 in serious games. GM Henrik Danielsen used it as a MAIN MOVE for many years also.
Keep posting lies, slander, and irrelevant 4 year old flame wars from the internet little man. I defeated you in chess and in debate. I proved that what you said is pure nonsense. All you have is hot air!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 12:45:03)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!
Your OTB rating is NOT stronger than mine, liar. If it were you'd step up to the plate and play me, instead of backing down as you're doing. You're probably a 1500-1700 elo OTB player. Considering your rather beginnerish question about the Lasker From, I might be giving you too much credit at that. You know as well as I do that you'd be lucky to get a single draw in ten games against me. I'd probably just win all ten.
Do you always run around challenging people to a chess match on the internet, then retreat like a frightened animal, with your tail between your legs, when they accept your challenge? How pathetic is that? I was looking forward to playing some human mind vs human mind chess with you, but the idea of actually having to THINK and use your own mind to come up with the moves was too much for you to deal with, so you BACKED DOWN like a little girl!
Jason Repa (2008-05-07 12:50:12)
Pablo BACKS DOWN!
And you're the one who started with the insults Pablo. You don't run around calling people "arrogant" because you're frustrated at your own inability to comprehend what
"and in the line with 4...Nf6 (called the Mestel Variation), there is no clear way for Black to win his pawn back."
means.
And challenging someone to a chess match then backing down as you have done is BEYOND PATHETIC!
Jason Repa (2008-05-08 03:13:22)
Pavasovic vs Baklan
This game was played a couple weeks ago in the 2008 European Individual Championship in Plovdiv.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1491774
It's hard to believe a GM would play this in a real game. It's an old cheapo line of the Tarrasch French where White gives up two pieces, then dangles a third, for an attack. Black's defense is simple and intuitive. He gives back one piece to diffuse the attack and wins a relatively simply endgame. I first came across this when someone tried it against me in a bullet game on playchess.com. Even at bullet time controls I was able to come up with 13...Ndxe5 (not too difficult to find) and consolidate the material advantage.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 00:43:41)
How to Win against the Pin!
This was an interesting game I played last year. My opponent blamed his tardiness for the loss, but the position seems quite resignable for Black as far as I'm concerned.
http://members.shaw.ca/winnipeg_chess/beating_internet_trolls_at_chess.htm
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 08:25:55)
When will this troll stop?
This is hilarious! You've got a guy (and I use the term loosely) who goes WAY out of his way to insult, harass, and annoy, now trying to pass himself off as holier-than-thou. He's even following me around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of abuse and provocation. If I say the sky is blue, he'll say green. If I say 2+2=4, he'll say there is no proof of that. This character will not stop trying to provoke, as this thread proves.
I start an innocent thread describing an interesting game I played with someone. He immediately starts criticizing my choice of chess openings, made all the more laughable because I CRUSHED the guy in chess, and am significantly higher rated than he is. Perhaps this is what is fueling his little tirade. He then proceeds to post links to off-topic discussions that occurred 4-5 years ago as further harassment. And this is the same individual who is whining about, of all things, Netiquette? Irony to the EXTREME!
His latest tactic is to incessantly suck up to the site admin by making repeated hybrid posts which are intended to harass me while worshiping the admin. We'll see his signature phrase "I agree with Thibault" over and over again ad-nausiam. As if this somehow buys him respite for the provocative and abusive comments he CONTINUES to make towards me.
Although you're probably used to being in that position, please get off your knees and stop brown nosing Stephenson. It's pathetic. And before you start talking about Netiquette, please learn what the term means yourself. We wouldn't be having this discussion if you did.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 11:30:35)
French traps
The French defence is one of the best replies to 1 e4 - accidents however are always possible as the following correspondence game shows with black playing into a lost position after just 13 moves:
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.e5 Nfd7 5.f4 c5 6.Nf3 Nc6 7.Be3 cxd4 8.Nxd4 Qb6 9.Qd2 Qxb2 10.Rb1 Qa3 11.Bb5 Nxd4 12.Bxd4 Bb4 13.O-O O-O ?? (black had to play 13 ..a6 although he will still be under pressure) 14 Rb3 Qa5 15.Qe3 Nb6 16.Qg3 Nc4 17 f5! and the correspondence game finished Rd8 18.Rf4 Bf8 19.Rg4 Kh8 20.f6 g6 21.Rh4 h6 22.Kh1 Kg8 23.Qh3 Kh7 24.Bc5 Rd6 25.g4 Qd8 26.g5 h5 27.Rxh5+
These things happen OTB but French defence players have known of this since Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 which went 19 f6 g6 20 Rh4 a6 21 Qh3 h5 22 Rxh5!! gxh5 23 Qxh5 axb5 24 Kf2 and white won. since then 13 0-0 has been avoided.
Of course at cc a player has time to research the databases and access to powerful chess engines at no cost.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 11:57:26)
How to Win against the Pin!
It was a pretty easy and straightforward win for me. I didn't have to worry about human intelligence and judgment getting in the way of my victory, as is normally the case in correspondence chess. All I had to do was outsmart a chess program being run by a very weak chess player.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:32:23)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What's clear, Stephenson, is that you're a very sad and pathetic individual. You obviously have no life whatsoever. You've been harassing me and trying to provoke me nonstop. First you start this troll behavior in the other thread....now you're doing it here as well. Is this what you do to everyone who outsmarts you and beats you in chess, as I have done?
It's one thing to follow me around from thread to thread and harass me, but the brown-nosing and whining to the admin you've been doing has made me lose all respect for you entirely. Not that I had much to begin with.
You even go so far as to obsessively comb through all of my games, just to try to find one that you think will someone embarrass or offend me. You even start a thread featuring one of my games. Obviously none of your own games are worthy of mentioning, so you focus on me and my chess games, lol. Well I have news for you Stephenson, I'm not embarrassed at all about my correspondence chess game losses (or any losses in chess for that matter). I've learned a lot more from my losses than my wins. My 6 losses on FICGS have taught me more than my 118 wins here, including the easy win against you and your chess program.
Perhaps others can benefit from my 6 losses as well. Do the FICGS community a favor and post my other five losses, not just the French Defense I played against Bucsa Ioan, that you felt warranted starting a thread to discuss.
Unlike you, I'm a real chess player. I enjoy learning and wish to take my OTB game to the next level and I believe that correspondence chess is helping me to do just that.
What is YOUR OTB chess rating? Interestingly you didn't respond to that question when it was asked of you more than once previously, lol. Big surprise!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 13:22:56)
Provocation
I am sorry I cannot respond to a lot of what you have posted as such a response would breach the rules.
I have not examined all your losses - just the French games - so I do not know how instructive they are I will try to review them later but I can't promise anything.
However I am a great believer in checking lines I play with the database to see whats been learnt and how the top GM's handle the particular lines.
All I learnt from my loss was not to play that particular line and to cut out all dodgy openings. In fact the line you played is not the strongest and I believe black can equalise - unfortunately I found an even stronger line for white which seems to refute the entire variation. There is however a book by an english GM from 2007 which looks at sicilian side lines and claims that there is no refutation.
When I have time I will stick all the analysis up and people can make up their own minds.
On correspondence taking someone's OTB chess to the next level I am a bit sceptical. It definitely has a significant effect on the accuracy of opening play and this can get some valuable wins by itself. But other progress needs separate study and training. Silmans Reassess your chess for example will increase the rating of any one below FIDE 2300 if studied intensively IMO.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 13:57:40)
Databases and books
Well I dont think a book should ever be trusted for cc no matter who has written it. It should always be critically examined - playing 18 moves from the book without switching on the engine seems very risky.
I think the position is lost after 13..0-0 14 Rb3 Qa5 15 Qd3 and I see no defence here. The only Dreev game I have in this line continued .. Nb6 16 Qg3 Nc4 and a draw was agreed.(Ivanchuk-Dreev 1993) Chess engines were not as good then and 17 f5 wins as was later discovered.
Where are these GM games from 2003?? Its strange that your database does not have Rechlis (2525) - Zueger (2448) 2001 In fact an earlier game Ernst - Grigutavicus (1999)had seen white crash through with 15 Qf2 Nb8 16 f5 - although Nb8 does not look a very good move. Whats the date of this Psakhis book? I hope its not after 2001!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:50:21)
ELO ratings
I believe ELO ratings are used for FIDE ratings I did not know you had a FIDE rating. I must say that ELO 2000 is an average to good club player and over 2200 in my experience is a good OTB rating. But looking at some of your OTB games between 1900 - 2000 seems to be the level of chess that I can see. Its ok - but the reality is that players do not improve very much after a certain age ......
Anyway at cc people tend to have it both ways if they win its because they are better players if they lose or draw its not real chess its just computers and it does not mean anything.
I am sure we will play again at cc and then you can demonstrate your skill. If I win I will not place a great emphasis on it. It not difficult to draw a cc game if you have the resources to hand.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 14:57:54)
Updating databases
The professional chess players I know down load TWIC then filter the stuff they are interested in into sub-databases. But what has this got to do with not having a 2001 game in 2007??. Unless a person has some ancient chess base data base - but then why would they not look online and cross check?? It took me about 3 minutes to find some relevant games including the 2001 game showing 13 ...0-0?? as losing.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-13 15:47:39)
Mr cfc
Frankly I have alway taken someone saying they have an ELO rating to refer to having a FIDE rating and not a national rating
I understand that you need to deduct about 35 points from sub 2200 ratings to get a FIDE equivalent. Well I have never met anyone before who thought that FIDE 2000 was such a high rating I dont mean that in a bad way I am just surprised that you think this is high.
As for beating me at chess I thought this was not real chess? Well like I said there is a sense in having it both ways. Look we could easily organise a money match at cc say for Euro 1000 6, 8, 10 games whatever you want, rapid time limit you can have white in every game and I can give you 3 to 1 odds. You win 1 game you get Euro 3000 you fail to win a game I get Euro 1000. All you have to do is win a game you can even lose all the other games.
Well like I said it does not prove anything - its a research competition. I dont want to hustle you but you have been making a lot of statements so if you are interested .......
But please dont challenge me to bullet games on playchess......
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
Hannes Rada (2008-05-14 20:10:41)
Jason's query
Jason, I gave up OTB chess some 20 years ago. So I have no OTB rating (anymore)
Playing in my chessclub was not and ist not compatible with my working hours.
CC is perfect for me. Analyzing and making move later in the evening when I am returning from work, or whenever I can find time.
It's wise to play the strongest possible opponents.
But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength.
Too many variables may influence the players chess abilities.
(Too many games at the same time, lack of motivation, ....)
On the other side an ambitious 1800 Elo newcomer can sometimes more dangerous than an "old" CC-GM.
FICGS is quite a nice community.
Here you have the chance to raise your rating and play against the higher rated players pretty soon compared with ICCF.
But your "strong opponent experience" will end here around 2500 - 2550.
Raising your rating in ICCF takes much more time (because tournaments are slower) but when you've established yourselve at a certain level than you have the chance to play the > 2700 guys like van Osteroom & Co :-)
But at this level correspondence chess is no fun anymore. I've talked to GM Peter Hertel from Germany several years ago and he told me that he had to analyze and work on his cc - chess positions around 10 hours per day to compete at this level ....
if you are retired or jobless and a billionaire (van Osteroom) than you have the best chances of winning an ICCF championship final .... :-)
Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities ?
I've talked to several players regarding this issue and I received different answers.
From: Yes I benefit from my cc-opening experience
To: No, these are absolutely different stories.
OTB requires the abilites to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours.
All things which are absolutely not necessary for cc.
My experience for the short time frame when I played both otb + cc is that for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Hannes Rada (2008-05-15 23:06:25)
Openings
Hi Andrew,
" It certainly seems a lot easier to get a draw against e4 at cc."
I've the same feeling.
But the top player vanOsteroom prefers definitely 1.e4 !
Does anybody know if 1.e4 or 1.d4 is played more often here at FICGS ?
"He played it 3 times including the critical line 1 d4 Nf6 2 c4 e6 3 Nc3 c5 4 d5 exd5 5 cxd5 d6 6 e4 g6 7 f4 etc and got 3 draws against opposition of 2150, 2300 and 2400."
Can this be considered as a success ?
50 % against lower rated opponents ?
Normally Benoni is played when you want or have to win with black ...
However Hector Walsh seems to have some fighting spirit.
Andrew do you know the IECG server ?
From time to time I get invitations from the IECG guys for their tournamengs, but never played there.
Jason Repa (2008-05-16 21:46:50)
Erm...
The easiest way is to just get in the habit of saving all your text in the windows clipboard every new paragraph or so. (Ctrl+a then Ctrl+c).
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
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-20 17:43:04)
strange message
Hi Benjamin, the strange message was following your word "eninges". I'm quite sure that many did not see the difference with "engines" :)
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-21 18:55:19)
Quotes
1. "There are only two kinds of tragedy in this world, one is not getting what you want and the other is getting."- Lord of War
2. "We cannot be sure of having something to live for unless we are willing to die for it."- Ernesto Che Guevara
3. "History will be kind to me for I intend to write it."
Winston Churchill
4. "You must have a dream in order to have it come true" - A.P.J Kalam
5. "However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results."
Winston Churchill
6. "If you are going through hell, keep going."
Winston Churchill
NOW THE BEST
7. "It is a good thing for an uneducated man to read books of quotations."
Winston Churchill
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.
Benjamin Block (2008-05-24 16:22:36)
New idea
In tournamens if i understand right the player with the best points win but if some have the same the highest ELO win. Why not use the Sonneborn-Bergers (you add oppenents whole points and the half points if it is a draw.) If the Sonneborn-Bergers points is the same you can take the moste wins in the tourney and if they are the same you can use the highest elo win.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-24 16:36:19)
Tournament winner in WCH
This is true in WCH round-robin tournaments only !
I explained why I've chosen this rule in previous threads, ie. :
>>
As you noticed, rating is quite important in FICGS world championship cycle (particularly established ratings, obtained from IECG / ICCF or after 9 games finished in FICGS) !
I think these rules are really the best choice in order to designate a world champion. It's more logical IMO to favour players who obtained previously the best results at FICGS and recognized organizations, and consequently a high rating. It takes time, of course. Even very strong players starting with a 1700 rating won't achieve a 2300 established rating before months !
Criterias in FICGS wch are (from most important to least) :
1) Winner of the previous cycle (qualify for the final match)
2) The eight best established ratings (play the KO tournament)
3) Points obtained in the wch tournaments
4) The tournament entry rating (TER)
<<
Benjamin Block (2008-05-25 13:44:22)
Draw!
In playchess.com the computer play against each other the fastest computer+the biggest opningsbook win. But if both computer have the same book and the same fast computer it is draw.
Benjamin Block (2008-05-25 16:22:40)
Black don´t win
But black will not win? Only white?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-25 18:33:27)
Statistics
Statistics may look like CEGT or SSDF ones (ie. Rybka 2.3.2 vs. Rybka 2.3.1, with probably more draws as the engines versions are the same) but whatever the engine, it will win as White and Black sometimes.
Arnab Sengupta (2008-05-27 16:53:56)
help
ok! so we came up with this variation- 1.d4 d5 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Nf3 c6 5.Bg5 h6 6.Bh4 dxc4 7.e4 g5 8.Bg3 b5 9.Be2 Bb7 10.O-O Nbd7 11.Ne5 Bg7 12.Nxd7 Nxd7 13.Bd6 a6 14.a4 e5 15.Bg4 exd4 16.e5 c5 17.Re1 Nxe5 18.Bxe5 O-O 19.Bxg7 Kxg7 20.Ne2 f5 21.Bh5 f4 22.b4 cxb3 23.Qxb3 Qd5 24.Qh3 Bc8 25.Nc3 dxc3 26.Qxc3+ Qd4 27.Qf3 Ra7 28.axb5 Rf6 29.h3
but now what? what should BLACK play here? Please i need your opinion to finish this variation. Do you think Black has any chance of Drawing the game here?
Michael Aigner (2008-05-27 18:35:33)
Sorry but white is going to win
I think black has a maximum 10 % drawing chances in this position. e.g.
[Event "Blitz:120'"]
[Site "PC"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "Naum 3.1"]
[Result "*"]
[PlyCount "65"]
[TimeControl "7200"]
{256MB, Hiarcs10.ctg, HOME-PC} 1. d4 d5 2. c4 e6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Nf3 c6 5. Bg5 h6
6. Bh4 dxc4 7. e4 g5 8. Bg3 b5 9. Be2 Bb7 10. O-O Nbd7 11. Ne5 Bg7 12. Nxd7
Nxd7 13. Bd6 a6 14. a4 e5 15. Bg4 exd4 16. e5 c5 17. Re1 Nxe5 18. Bxe5 O-O 19.
Bxg7 Kxg7 20. Ne2 f5 21. Bh5 f4 22. b4 cxb3 23. Qxb3 Qd5 24. Qh3 Bc8 25. Nc3
dxc3 26. Qxc3+ Qd4 27. Qf3 Ra7 28. axb5 Rf6 29. h3 Qd6 (29... Re6 30. Qa3 Rxe1+
(30... Qd6 31. Rxe6 Bxe6 32. Rd1 Qe5 33. b6 Re7 34. Rc1 g4 35. hxg4 Rd7 36. Qa5
Qd6 37. Qxa6 and White wins) 31. Rxe1 Bf5 32. b6 and White wins) 30. Re8 Be6 31. h4 g4 32. Bxg4 Bf7
33. Rc8 and White is clearly better
Regards Michael
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-27 19:07:57)
E-Points
Hello Mik.
"chalnge", you mean challenge I assume.
Well, as E-Points may be converted in real money by winning silver/gold games, I bet you understand that it should lead quite quickly to some problems & abuses :)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-05-28 00:32:54)
Advanced Go games
Actually, it should also open a pop-up window if your browser allow it for the site. Anyway you should remove from the waiting list if you can't check the page regularly.
Don Groves (2008-05-29 00:17:16)
Fast games vs. slow games
Hi, Mik -- Fast games are more often lost by a mistake rather than won by good play. Many of us enjoy the challenge of finding the best move and winning by good play instead of relying on opponent mistakes. Try it, you may like it too ;-)
Mik Kris (2008-05-29 06:37:00)
so thing you might not know about go
go is not about making a better move its about keeping the game equal
you cant win in go unless youre oponent had a misstake that you fix
or a simple misstake you didnt evean have to fix
most players take too long to realy understand this
hell i know this i stil dont understand it
but its true ask any strong player or pro
its evean more true in our kyu games where we make a wrong move every few
also i took some time lookin at some games on this site
it seems that most players here dont use the extra time they have to read
or make shape any way
in fact many games are lost becouse of misstakes in reading
what seems to me becuse the lack of faster games where you have to read perfactly fast
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.
Don Groves (2008-06-03 06:43:39)
Poker at FICGS
Skill in poker is in how you manage your money and knowing when to bluff and when not to. If the stakes are not large enough to make bluffing meaningful, then it becomes simply who gets the better cards -- a game of chance. Just my $0.02 worth ;-)
Jason Repa (2008-06-03 08:06:37)
Poker
There's a bit more to the game than just knowing when to bluff. Poker is all about exploiting mistakes and minimizing both the frequency and magnitude of the mistakes that you make. Mistakes can take various forms, ranging from tells, to lack of or too much aggression, to letting your emotions get the better of you, making mathematical errors, etc.
Money management is meaningless if you're making -EV decisions.
Michael Sharland (2008-06-04 00:42:53)
Worth a try
It might be fun to give it a try but I don't think that you would get too much separation in ELO between the top and bottom players. I think it will be hard for anyone to win more than 65% of the time unless the blinds aren't increased too fast. Slower blind increases will increase the length of the average game and allow for a little more skill but will make it harder to come up with workable time controls. Maybe a 10-20 minute control with little or no increment would work best.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 06:13:07)
Poker
--- Jason Repa wrote:
"There's a bit more to the game than just knowing when to bluff. Poker is all about exploiting mistakes and minimizing both the frequency and magnitude of the mistakes that you make. Mistakes can take various forms, ranging from tells, to lack of or too much aggression, to letting your emotions get the better of you, making mathematical errors, etc."
--------
I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game. Once someone can play technically correct poker, as you would find in any high-level game, then bluffing and money management become paramount.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 06:48:23)
Poker
"I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game"
Actually, you've just confirmed that you don't know anything at all about the game of poker. As is the case for you with chess. And you obviously didn't understand the expression "-EV" , so I'll explain it to you. EV means expected value. It is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the event multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff). Thus, it represents the average amount one "expects" as the outcome of the random trial when identical odds are repeated many times. Obviously if this value is a negative number, money-management is completely meaningless as you will lose money in the long run. Money management is actually the easiest thing to figure out. It's a no-brainer for anyone who knows anything about money gaming. It has to do with ensuring that you have enough cash on hand to keep the risk of ruin down to a comfortable level, to account for standard deviation (bad luck). If you're a losing poker player, ie, one in which the net result of all your decisions results in a negative expected value, money management is clearly totally meaningless. This simple concept is quite obvious to most people. I've never before met an adult who required it to be explained to them like this.
People who's minds go beyond the superficial understand that there is much more to poker than working out the simple arithmetic of the game, such as how many outs for a flush/straight.... pot odds, implied pot odds, etc, which is probably what you mean by "knowing the mechanics of the game". Playing that kind of mindless, one-dimensional game might work OK at microlimits, but beyond that you'll need to learn that poker is much more of a game of psychology than it is a game of math. A mathematician by the name of Barry Greenstein, who incidentally has won more than $10,000,000 playing poker, once said that also. I've got a feeling he knows a bit more about the game than you do, lol.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 09:11:18)
Poker
As usual, Groves, you're returning to your trolling ways once again. You're the one who started with the personal attack here, not me. I simply stated that that there is more to poker than mere bluffing and money management, as you contended. You seriously don't know anything at all about the game of poker. That's not an attack, that's a fact. I was studying the value of inflection points and stack to pot ratios when you were struggling to learn the difference between a straight and a flush.
Just as you're a 1600 chess player, so you're showing your mediocrity where poker is concerned by grossly oversimplifying what the game is about. Saying that poker is more a game of psychology than math is hardly saying that all there is to poker is bluffing, as you repeatedly and mindlessly keep stating. For starters, bluffing is just one tool in a strong poker player's toolbox, and it is both a psychological, as well as a scientific/mathematical tool at that. In no limit poker, for example, sometimes a player will spend hours trying to create a certain image just to set up one single play in order to win a large pot. There are all kinds of relevant intangibles that are so far beyond your comprehension it's not funny.
And I really couldn't care less what you agree or disagree with. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. I have a proven track record over the last two decades as a winning player. I'd be surprised if you're not in the hole overall. And FYI, everything I've said is consistent with what guys like Greenstein, Skansky, Harrington, etc have been saying for years.
Do yourself a favour, Groves.....go read a poker book and learn some basics. Then perhaps you'll be able to make a contribution to a discussion about poker.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 10:02:42)
Poker
Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck".
You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult.
As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 19:21:48)
Poker
As was just explained to you, groves, you're not a 1600 chess player as the result of "bad luck". You have the rating you do for a reason. The fact that you're not intelligent enough to get your chess rating up to even a modest level does indeed relate to your inability to understand concepts in other areas. Go back to your original post and try to understand what this "discussion" is all about. It's about the fact that you can't comprehend my statement that poker is a game which involves more than just knowing when to bluff and managing your money. I even went so far as to try to explain the concept of EV to you as I wasn't confident you would figure out how to look that up on your own.
What's very telling here is that all of my posts contain discussion of poker whereas your just keep trying to be offensive and whining about how you feel "insulted" when I've done nothing but state objective facts about you. I suppose referring to you as a 1600 chess player is also an "insult" Your last two posts are completely devoid of any discussion of poker whatsoever.
I'd tell you to grow up, groves, but at your age I think it's a bit too late for you.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 19:59:07)
Poker
Your definition of "objective facts" is a bit weak, Repa. You state that I'm not intelligent enough to get my Chess rating higher yet I just told you I don't play Chess anymore. Besides that, my meager rating was achieved without the use of computers. One of the reasons I switched to Go is because Go is not yet dominated by computer programs. Why don't you try Go yourself and see how high a rating you can achieve without the aid of a computer? Also, in my second post, I agreed with you there is more to poker than just bluffing, etc. I said my comments were meant for players who already had mastered the mechanics and mathematics of the game. Rather than acknowledging this, you commenced with an ad hominem attack so typical of you.
I stand by my original statement that the stakes in poker must be high enough to make bluffing possible or the game becomes nothing but chance where the best hand wins every pot. The best psychological game of poker is five-card draw with pot-limit and table-stakes. Playing with cards dealt face-up as in stud or hold-em (which is a form of 7-card stud) is for those who can't handle the uncertainty of not knowing for sure when they have a lock or at least that the odds are heavily in their favor.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:22:20)
Poker
No, your ability to understand simple concepts is what is weak here groves. You keep whining that your paltry 1600 chess rating shouldn't matter because you haven't played chess in a couple of years, but what difference does that make? Are elo points easier to obtain now? And what about Go? You play that game regularly, yet you have a pathetic 1300 rating at that as well. You better open a window before you think up another lame excuse....I wouldn't want you to die from smoke inhalation.
I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself in order for the point to penetrate your skull, but your comment about "mastering the mechanics" of the game is pure nonsense. You speak as if the entirety of poker theory can be equated to memorizing basic strategy in blackjack. You seem to think the discussion of calculating EV is based purely on figuring out pot-odds and how that relates to the number of outs, etc, but if you had the incipience of a clue about the game you'd realize that there is much MORE involved than that. Poker is an information game and all the information you have at your disposal, such as the temperament and mood of your opponent(s), your perceived table image (or at least your interpretation of it), the history of the action that has occurred so far, the tells that you pick up and the false tells that you may be sending to your opponents, etc, goes into the calculation of the EV on any given play. The better a player is able to conduct these evaluations and convert them into value, at least intuitively....the better a poker player they are. Even online poker has some tell/false-tell action as the response time can be varied.
Re-read my previous post where I mentioned that mistakes can take various forms. I clearly state, and in simple terms such that even you should be able to grasp, that there is more to the game than straightforward arithmetic calculations.
And I realize that you don't work, but geez, can you not find something better to do with your time than try to provoke people on the internet? Why don't you use all that free time you have on your hands to learn how to play Chess or Go beyond the level of a rank beginner?
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 20:37:40)
Rapid chess entry rating
No, Lowrance, you're the one missing the point here. And you're using engine assistance as much as anyone here, so don't pretend like you're somehow at a disadvantage. I've played you, and you're 100% program. Perhaps that's the problem.
Thibault mentioned once that a weak player running Rybka can get to around 2100 or so. To get beyond that requires some chess knowledge. While he may not be precisely accurate about the number....perhaps it's 2200 instead......nonetheless, the point is accurate. Everyone who's above 2000 on this site is consulting chess engines, but in corr. chess simply running a program alone is not the strongest way to play. You make it sound as though Rybka plays the perfect chess game. If that were the case everyone on this site would be rated about the same. It should be quite obvious to you that to go from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than going from 2200-2300. As a higher rated player, you get less points for winning or drawing, and lose more when you lose. As for your chances against 2400 players being the same as against 2100 players, that's pure nonsense. You'd be lucky to get the occasional draw against a 2400 player, (one who's really earned their rating and not just started with an artificially high rating as is the case with more than a few on this site) whilst you will lost most of those games. A higher rated player is higher rated for a reason. They win more games.
The correct spelling of my name should also be obvious to you, as it's on the same page that you're entering text into.
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.
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.
Benjamin Block (2008-06-14 10:56:40)
Quote festival, part 4
You can´t win the best player. Because if you win him he is not the best.
(Benjamin Block)
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-06-29 08:05:35)
From a silly movie ...
Religion is like wine, it most be tabken with moderation.
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-06-29 08:07:01)
Sorry about the spelling...
Religion is like wine, it most be taken with moderation.
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
Normajean Yates (2008-07-11 01:00:36)
Thibault has a point
Like the mind-body problem; discussing the free will problem has the following problem:
It is not possible to pose these problems accurately in language [Noam Chomsky said this somewhere].
I (normajean) believe these are mystical/artistic/poetic questions and the answers have to be mystical/artistic/poetic also.
Normajean Yates (2008-07-13 23:01:01)
help - chat column missing
I can see a white-background black-text chat column / frame on the right in some of my computer, but they are absent in others. Can someone please help?
Windows XP, firefox 2, adblock plus [popups enables for ficgs]
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-07-14 18:30:38)
Luck or Knowledge?
WCH-KO-Final 2: Ingersol - Utesch
I'd just lost all my hope for winning the last game and the match - but now (after 89....g5??) !?
In my opinion is chess a game of luck!!!
Harry had been much better in most games of the match, but failed in last game - I won't be very proud on this match win.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-07-14 21:41:51)
hmmm
I remember you previously posted about this game having, after many hours, found a problem like win. It sesm that this was wrong!
I guess that 89 ...Be7 followed by g5 holds the draw and white just got the order of moves mixed up and played g5 first. It happens....
On the other hand 25 ..Bd3 seems unecessarily risky while 25 ...Ra5 looks fine for black. Still you kept up the pressure and often you make your own luck :))
Normajean Yates (2008-07-15 03:25:32)
is mirroring moves legal on ficgs?
suppose I am playing a tournament. I need only 1 point [1/2=draw,1=win]. in one game I am white. In another game I am black.
In the game where I am black, I wait for opp to move, say move w1. Then in the game where I am white, I make the move w1, then I wait for opp's reply, say b1. Now in the game where I am black I move b1. And so on..
So i am guranteed exactly 1 point (1/2+1/2 = 1 + 0 = 0+1 = 1).
Is this legal? If not, by which rule?
Thibault?
Michael Sharland (2008-07-15 20:12:15)
Wouldn't work anyway
If your opponent wanted to stop you they could just push you up against the time limit on one of the games as the mirroring player would always use at least a little more time than the opponent. Once the player has to pick a move, the opponent can diverge. Each player would than have a big time advantage in one game but that wouldn't be a big deal at these controls.
Only a vacation balance advantage would allow this idea to still work against determined opposition.
Usually, a better stategy is to diverge at the point where you can play a significantly better move than the opponent used and try and win at least one of the games while holding the other.
Jonathan Willis (2008-07-17 17:52:00)
Ending a game of Go
Hi
Unless I'm missing something I can't seem to see how to end a game of Go I'm in. We've both passed (several times now) I've calculated that I win by about 6.5 points but as far as the help section goes it just seems to say you reach an agreement??!!! How do you actually end a game? Thanks.
Benjamin Block (2008-07-17 19:30:56)
Why more times an be good.
First i am going to take a example.
You will play on a high rated tournamnet on iccf. The fee is 10 euro. But it is too hard for you too win so you need help from this site. You take help from this site. If you lose on this site you will win on iccf. If you lose on iccf you will win here not smart?
One more example. I play vs example you Thibault.
You are white. You start with. 1.e4 i make the move on iccf. the player on iccf. move 1-.e5 and i make the move on this site and so on....
Normajean Yates (2008-07-24 00:38:58)
Mark, where is your sensayuma?:)
Get a sense of divers humour, man!
Philip, :)
[same thing, more seriously, but not only about humans - Dawkins's 'Selfish Genes' presentation of [neo-]Darwin?] Dawkins is, or rather used to be, interesting - but not half as funny as Philip's contribution is :D
PS: I am lesbian, so the likes of me would have mightily puzzled whoever wrote that poem :) :)
Marc Lacrosse (2008-07-28 15:59:14)
I see ...
Hi Thibault
OK I see : you were happy (as I am) with four draws in one single well-prepared line as Black but went on missing the qualification as your four white games were also drawn (and Farit's rating was superior to yours).
Maybe I will suffer the same fate ...
But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ...
As white I am busy varying the positions a little and trying to play more actively ...
We will see...
By the way I think that the rule according which the highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws is really a significant advantage ...
... but i agree that we need a way to adjudicate drawn matches.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-07-28 18:18:20)
8 games matches
"But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ..."
Theorically (only ?). Anyway I made this choice during my match because I had about 80 running games at that time (quite inhuman :)) so I managed my rating :/
You know that this time control 30 days + 1 day / move is quite different from classical 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves, the pressure in the 8 games may be important, also the psychological factor [playing White feels more (sometimes too much) secure ie(?): Xavier won his 2 games with Black in the first Candidates final] and I'm convinced that every game counts these ways. The tie break rule (highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws) did not apply so often by the way.
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:)
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-03 21:50:22)
Will try to help!
Hi Marc
We were talking about WCH 2 which is history now as the round robin final for which you received a direct entry was won by Francois Caire (equal with Alberto Gueci). As far as WCH 3 is concerned I will do my best to reduce your burden of games by winning my last game:)) But this could be difficult as Janos has other ideas!
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-08-04 15:06:15)
A silly one .....
I read this somewhere ...
Comparing George W Bush with Bill Clinton is worse than comparing Monica Lewinsky with Condoleezza Rice
Normajean Yates (2008-08-06 03:30:00)
where does strategy stealing come in?
What is 'obvious' but provable is: "A finite combinatorial 2 person game of complete-information is deterministic [ie has a pure srategy, considered as a 'pure game-theory' 2-person game]. To prove that, one needs to define a 2-person complete-info combinatorial game, and strategies in that context [which come out to be "solution subtrees"]
I dont see where strategy stelaing comes in - it does come in eg for the trivial but nonconstructive proof that nxn hex is a win for the first player ...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-08 13:19:10)
MoGo wins ! (estimated 2 dans)
I just read it in the American Go E-Journal, MoGo computer program defeated Myungwan Kim 8P by 1.5 points in a 9-stone game billed as Humanitys Last Stand?
The professional player estimated MoGos current strength at two or maybe three dan, made some 5-dan moves (the program used 800 processors, at 4.7 Ghz, 15 Teraflops on a borrowed European supercomputer)
Strangely, Kim easily won two blitz games with 9 stones and 11 stones and lost one with 12 stones and 15 minutes by 3.5 points before this one hour game.
http://senseis.xmp.net/?MoGo
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Go
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-09 21:49:23)
Marshall Fest
I guess so Thibault. Kasparov never accepted the Marshall - always anti marshall. Still couple of high level white wins recently and Aronian opted for the Berlin the other day....
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-10 07:45:29)
Mogo
So mogo gets to put down 9 stones to start with but I dont know whether he moved first or second - it sounds like he moved first and there was no Komi. Anyway its a big handicap but the breakthrough appears to be that the win was achieved on a 19x19 board in a "long" game (1 hour) Kim didnt use so much of his time but said more time spent would not have made any difference prononcing Mogo invincible at 9 stones and very difficult with 8 stones. The programmers were excited because they said 1 year ago they needed 18 stones now 9 and maybe a year to lose the other 9! If they can maintain this rate of improvement then they are suggesting that in a few years mogo could be the strongest go player in the world. Interestingly there is a reversal here with chess: programs being stronger against humans the shorter the game (ie blitz) but Mogo did better with more time! I guess this is about the time Mogo needs to assess the long term consequences of each move.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-10 07:58:24)
Fischers move
White has chosen 12 g3 - in all 4 games - a slightly unusual move order - but I expect black to head down the main "highway" where very few deviations have been seen on the white side. 4 wins or 4 draws? The next 3/4 moves will determine the nature of the game - very interesting!
Phil Cook (2008-08-12 07:34:16)
Morales Vs Cook
[Event "Single game, E4EC"]
[Site "http://gameknot.com/"]
[Date "2008.04.22"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Morales, Rafael (rafafallo)"]
[Black "Cook, Phil (Kiwi)"]
[Result "0-1"]
[WhiteElo "1078"]
[BlackElo "1170"]
[TimeControl "10/30"]
1. d4 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 } d5
2. Nc3 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not
commonly played } e6 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5
2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played} 3. a3 {3.blocking ..Bb4} h6 4. e4 a6
5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 {3. ....... h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 attemps
white into another exchange} 7. Bg2 {7.Bg2 defends } Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9.
c4 Be7 10. d5 {7. Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 (white here,trying
to open the middle up) so black attacks} cxd5 11. cxd5 O-O 12. dxe6 {12.dxe6,,(black
gives up a pawn or does he)} Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6 {12. dxe6
Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6(wins the pawn back,has white in disarray
here)} 15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 {15. Nf3
Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 (note whites black bishop)}
Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ {19. Bxf3 Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5
Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3(white lost contol and game from here,yet plods on)} 23.
Kxf3 Rxd2 {22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ 23. Kxf3 Rxd(loss of bishop)} 24. Rc6 Rd3+ 25.
Ke4 Rbd8 26. Rxe6 Rd3d6 27. Rxd6 Rxd6 28. Rc1 Rd4+ 29. Kf5 Rxb4 30. Kg6
Rg4+ 31. Kf5 Rc4 32. Rd1 Rc5+ 33. Ke4 b4 34. Rb1 Rb5 35. Rb3 Bc3 36. f4
Rxa5 37. f5 Ra3 0-1
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-12 21:32:49)
No novelty
F Perez-Cruz v F Acosta 1994 correspondence Massow Memorial (1-0 32) 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 Qh5+ g6 5 Nxg6 Nf6 6 Qh3 hxg6 7 Qxh8 Qe7 8 Nc3! The game continued with Nb4 9 d4?! (9 d3 looks like an easy win) Nxe4 10 Nxe4 Qxe4+ 11 Be3 Kf7?! (had to play 11..f4 12 Bd3 Nxd3 [12 ..Qxg2 13 Qe5+ Be7 13 Be4] 13 cxd3 Qxg2 14 Rf1 d6 when he can fight on) 12 Bd3 Nxd3 13 cxd3 with a won position.
If I faced this Nc6 line I would play after 1 e4 e5 2 Nf3 f5 3 Nxe5 Nc6 4 d4! (John Nunn's refutation) this squelches all blacks hopes for play. What now for black? 4..Nf6 5 Nxc6 dxc6 6 e5 which looks like a pawn odds game. I dont know.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-14 20:31:38)
FICGS
The best is a) as it describes the games played on the server. Bigchess can be seen as a chess variant and if "games" is supposed to cover just this and go it seems an exaggeration. However if Poker is to be included then b) would win my vote.
Phil Cook (2008-08-16 10:54:51)
(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation)
Morales Vs Cook
[Event "Single game, E4EC"] [Date "2008.04.22"] [Round "-"] [White "Morales, Rafael (rafafallo)"] [Black "Cook, Phil (Kiwi)"] [Result "0-1"] [WhiteElo "1078"] [BlackElo "1170"] [TimeControl "10/30"] 1. d4 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 } d5 2. Nc3 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played } e6 {(D 00 Queeens Pawn,Chigorin varation) 1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 e6..not commonly played} 3. a3 {3.blocking ..Bb4} h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 {3. ....... h6 4. e4 a6 5. g3 dxe4 6. Nxe4 Nf6 attemps white into another exchange} 7. Bg2 {7.Bg2 defends } Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 {7. Nxe4 8. Bxe4 c6 9. c4 Be7 10. d5 (white here,trying to open the middle up) so black attacks} cxd5 11. cxd5 O-O 12. dxe6 {12.dxe6,,(black gives up a pawn or does he)} Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6 {12. dxe6 Qxd1+ 13. Kxd1 Rd8+ 14. Bd2 fxe6(wins the pawn back,has white in disarray here)} 15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 {15. Nf3 Bf6 16. Rb1 Nd7 17. b4 Ne5 18. Ke2 Nxf3 19. Bxf3 (note whites black bishop)} Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ {19. Bxf3 Rb8 20. a4 b5 21. a5 Bb7 22. Rbc1 Bxf3(white lost contol and game from here,yet plods on)} 23. Kxf3 Rxd2 {22. Rbc1 Bxf3+ 23. Kxf3 Rxd(loss of bishop)} 24. Rc6 Rd3+ 25. Ke4 Rbd8 26. Rxe6 Rd3d6 27. Rxd6 Rxd6 28. Rc1 Rd4+ 29. Kf5 Rxb4 30. Kg6 Rg4+ 31. Kf5 Rc4 32. Rd1 Rc5+ 33. Ke4 b4 34. Rb1 Rb5 35. Rb3 Bc3 36. f4 Rxa5 37. f5 Ra3 0-1
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 ā 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 rčglement 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 maničre dont tu as abordé ce match contre Gino et
son déroulement au fur et ā 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 męme : 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 lā que je me suis dit qu'il fallait que je prenne
des risques avec les noirs. Au fur et ā 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
ā la finale des candidats du championnat.
- Tu as réalisé pendant le championnat un parcours sans faute, aucune
défaite ā signaler, tu affiches également des statistiques stratosphériques ā
78% contre une moyenne elo ā prčs 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 ā égalité et j'ai eu l'avantage du
classement du départ de ce tournoi comme l'indique le rčglement. Quant ā mes
statistiques, c'est aussi grâce aux erreurs de mes adversaires qui m'ont permis
de gagner des parties équilibrées.
- Que penses-tu du systčme 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 : Trčs bonne question !
Le systčme 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 ā plusieurs parties en cours. Surtout quand on travaille.
C'est peut-ętre aussi grâce ā 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 ā
assurer tous les matchs nulles pour gagner ce duel et sinon
d'obtenir une victoire supplémentaire contre le challenger est un mode trčs bien
pensé. La modification que je pourrais y apporter est peut-ętre la gestion du
temps qui est rapide pour un systčme de jeu par serveur.
Peut-ętre 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 ā
l'avance serait également appréciable.
- Pourquoi t'ętre investi dans les échecs par correspondance ?
T'apportent-ils d'autres satisfactions par rapport aux échecs classiques et au
blitz ?
X : Je préfčre les échecs par correspondance par rapport au temps.
Car les échecs classiques se jouent souvent le week-end, ā 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 ā 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 ā la tentation et te limiter ā jouer un nombre trčs
raisonnable de parties sur le site tout le long du championnat, penses-tu
néanmoins que les échecs par correspondance soient addictifs et ā 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 męme une chose trčs difficile
ā gérer !
C'est peut-ętre 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 ā 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 ā analyser les parties et moins temps avec ma
famille, ce qui est assez difficile pour moi.
Mais quand les résultats sont lā 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 ā calculer.
Car jouer simplement le meilleur coup de Rybka 3, de Fritz 12 ou Hiarcs 12 sans
réfléchir mentalement mčne ā la nulle si l'adversaire fait de męme ou
possiblement ā 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 ā 5 coups evalués de maničre semblable, et c'est lā qu'il faut choisir
le bon coup alors que celui-ci n'est męme pas forcément cité par le moteur
d'analyse...
- Tu joues désormais au Big Chess sur le site, curiosité ou intéręt ? 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 trčs 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, particuličrement Franįois et
Wolfgang qui disputent la deuxičme 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 ā Franįois et Wolfgang une belle finale !
Je dois faire honneur ā cette compétition qui est bien organisée !
- Le match devrait pouvoir débuter durant la premičre semaine de janvier 2009, la cadence sera ā nouveau de 30 jours et 1 jour supplémentaire par coup.
Merci pour tes réponses, et encore bravo pour cette belle performance !
X : Merci ! Et ā bientôt ! Bonne continuation ā tous et bonnes parties !
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-16 22:10:38)
Burden of games!
" and if I am not wrong I am not far from winning WCH-03-stage2-group02 (possibly ex aequo with you)..."
I think I might have some good news for you Marc :)
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'ętre invested in correspondence chess? T'apportent there are other rewards compared to traditional chess and blitz?
X: I prefer chess match over time. For the classical chess is often play the weekend at a specific time and often on the move to make a tournament. The advantage for me, correspondence chess is that I can connect at any time to play my shots, which allows me, for example, making family meals on weekends and late at night to play a coup, which is not possible chess classics.
-- You knew not to succumb to the temptation and you only play a very reasonable number of parties on the site throughout the championship, do you think nevertheless that the correspondence chess are addictive and at what point? Did they affect your everyday life?
X: Yes! Limiting my number of games in progress is essential for me to try to have parts of quality rather than quantity. Have a lot of parts simultaneously is still something very difficult to manage! This is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio, I watched its games in progress, it had nearly 90 on the site of the ICCF, it has been felt on his time devoted to analysis our parties on FICGS 8. On the everyday life impacts are family because it is true that I spend more time to analyze the parts and less time with my family, which is quite difficult for me. But when the results are there I do not regret!
-- What do you think about the current position of engines for analysis (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz and others) in correspondence chess? What are the qualities you complementary core player by correspondence, now centaur with the machine for legs?
X: The engines of analyses in chess matches are used by 95% of players ... Now we must adapt and learn to use these machines to calculate. Car simply play the best shot of Rybka 3, Fritz 12 or Hiarcs 12 mentally without thinking leads to zero if the opponent does the same or possibly lose if the opponent gives himself the trouble to consider using them as well. Knowing that when you're in the middle part of these programs give you often 4 to 5 strokes assessed similarly, and that is that we must choose the right time when it is not even necessarily cited by the analysis engine ...
-- You get the Big Chess now on the site, curiosity or interest? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X: For curiosity and fun and I think Rybka 3 is not yet the Big Chess! This version is almost unprecedented I did not know this form of chess before therefore the one who invented this game was very well done! About I'm the one who asks you a question on the Big chess ... Is there possibility of castle with this game if so, how? (Editor's note: No, it is impossible to castle the Big Chess)
-- And finally the question that everyone arises, especially Francis and Wolfgang disputing that the second final candidates, think you can defend your title next year? :)
X: of course! I will defend the title! I would like if possible to know the timing and pace of the match. And I wish Francis and Wolfgang a beautiful final! I must honor in this competition which is well organized!
-- The match should be able to start during the first week of January 2009, the pace will again 30 days and 1 additional day by coup. Thank you for your answers, and even congratulations for this excellent performance!
X: Thank you! And see you! Bonne continuation to all and good parties!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-18 16:06:16)
translation
I will have a go off the top of my head at giving a sense of the interview in english (I dont know the phrase tonitruand but I am guessing it means dynamic!)?:
Hi Xavier and first of all congratulations on your success in the candidates final match against IM (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Peru]
You had to avoid drawing all the games and finally you succeded with the black pieces. How did that happen?
Xavier: Hi thank you. Its true that if all the games had been drawn then under the rules Figlio would have won whereas if the match was drawn but with a win and loss I would win. Because of this I had to take risks and attack. It was with Black that I did this because I thought that Gino would play safely to be sure of a draw.
- Tell us how you approched the match and how the different phases of the game went
x: Its quite simple, I was not the favorite I have 200 ELO less on FICGS and Gino is an IM on ICCF with a 2480 rating. I did not think I could survive 8 games at once - in a single game anything is possible but 8 games .... it was a big challenge for me! In the openings I chose 4 different moves 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nf3 Gino chose 1 e4 1 d4 1 c4 1 Nc3 I was surpised by 1 Nc3 because I was expecting dynamic openings and it was then that I decided I must take some risks with black. I kept most of the games balanced with a draw in hand and concentrated on 2 games 1 white and 1 black to get a result. In the end I got 3 wins which seemed an impossibility given the quality of the games Gino had played on this site to reach the final.
- you have not lost any games in the championship and you have fantastic statistics 78% against an average elo of about 2200. What is your secret?
x: My secret? I havent any secret and if I did I would not say because I would not win anymore! I think I have been a bit lucky because in the the Round Robin final there were 3 of us on the same score and I went through under the rules because of my rating. As for my statistics I was helped by mistakes by opponents who allowed me to win some drawn games.
- What do you think of the system for the FICGS championship (round robin and knock out matches)and what changes would you make?
x: Very good question. The matches are a bit too fast for me - 1 day per move when there are hours of analysis needed to exploit a complicated position its difficult when you have several games running Particularly if you are working. Perhaps that is why my opponents have made errors or failed to exploit my mistakes.
But this time limit has an advantage over ICCF where it is 5 days per move the games here are 5 times quicker! Having 8 game matches is an excellent idea and obliging the favorite to draw all the games and the challenger to get a at least 1 victory is very well thought out. The change that I would suggest is to have 15 days extra starting time that is 45 days at the start instead of 30 and also the possibilty to take holidays for tournaments for example take 7 days for championship games and to be able to play big chess go or another chess tournament during the holiday. To be able to choose the start of a holiday in advance would also be good.
- Why do you like cc and how does it compare to blitz and normal chess?
x: I prefer cc because of the time factor. Classical chess is often played at the week end at a fixed time and you have to travel to the tournament. The advantage for me at cc is that I can connect at any time to play a move which allows me for example to have meals with the family at the weekend. Late night moves for example are not possible at classical chess.
- You limited the number of your games on the site to a reasonable amount throughout the championship. Do you think nonetheless that cc is addictive? Does it affect your daily life?
x: Yes! Limiting the number of my games is essential to try to have games of quality not quantity. Having a lot of games going at the same time is something very difficult to handle. It is perhaps the key to my victory against Figlio - I looked at his games - he had not less than 80 games going on at ICCF this must have affected the amount of time he could spend analysing his 8 games at FICGS. The effects on daily life are felt by the family because the reality is if I spend more time analysing the games I spend less time with the family. Thats difficult for me. But when the results come I dont regret it!
- What do you think of the role of chess engines (Rybka Fritz etc)in cc. What are for you the important skills of a cc player - to supplement the machine?
x: Chess engines are used in cc by 95% of players. You have to adapt yourself and know how to use the engines. To play just the best move of Rybka 3 Fritz 12 or Hiracs 12 without thinking leads to a draw if your opponent does the same or to a loss if your opponent is thinking. You have to choose bewteen 4 or 5 moves with a similer evaluation from the engine during a game and sometimes the best move is not among these.
- You play Big chess. Interest or curiosity? What do you think of this strange version of chess?
X : Curiosity and amusement and I think Rrybka 3 cannot yet play Big Chess! This version is new and I did not know it and the inventor has done a good job! By the way I would like to ask is it possible to castle at Big Chess?
[No its not possible]
- Finally the question that everyone is asking particularly Francois and Wolfgang who are contesting the 2nd candidates final. Do think you will be able to defend your title next year? :)
x: Definitely I will defend the title I would like to know if possible the date and time limits for the match. I wish Francois and Wolfgang a great match! I would also like to express my appreciation for this tournament which has been well organised!
- the match should start in the first week in January next year the time limit will be 30 days plus 1 day per move. Thank you for your answers and once again congratulations on a great performance.
x: Thank you. Cheers. Best wishes to everyone and good games!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 02:16:39)
Its a win !!!!
You must be joking!! Thibault its a definite win it will be over in a few moves!!
If anyone thinks black can survive please suggest some moves. The key to the win is that the best black can do is reach the position in a) below with Bishop and 2 pawns v R and 1 pawn. White wins becuse his king has access to e4, the Bishop is restricted by his pawns on a7 and e5 and most importantly his passed a pawn is not advanced.
It has been completely lost since move 63 ...Kxf4 Janos should have taken with the pawn 63..exf4 would have allowed him to reach a table base draw. On 66 Kd3 I had the win completely worked out and have been replying instantly since then. Adjudicating this is a draw is just plain wrong. Anyone who spends time on this position will see the win I have outlined and that there is no defence. The winning method is to force an exchange of rooks by Rc4-g4 with mating threats against the Black king - black cannot allow this and must play Rd4 allowing exchange of a pair rooks when the resulting R+P v B+P+P is won. Before playing Rc4 white checks with the other rook to cut off the f file. The only way to avoid the rook exchange is to allow the white King access to e4 - at the moment the black rook cuts off d3 and the bishop if it goes to b6 will cut off e3. If the king gets to e4 either the e5 pawn drops or the king gets to d5 and e6 either result is fatal
Here are the main lines:
a) 72..Bb6 73 Rg8+ Kf5 (73..Kh5 74 Rc1 Rd4 75 Rh1+ wins the rook) 74 Rf8+ Kg5 75 Rc4! Rd4 (see below a1 for 75..Bd4)76 Rxd4! exd4 77 Kd3 (This ending is completely won the white king penetrates through e4, the black bishop is useless - remove pawn at d4 and its a table base win) Here are the main lines 77... Bc5 78 Rc8 Bb6 79 Ke4 Kf6 80 f4 Kf7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Kf7 83 Ke5 a5 84 Rc6 Bd8 85 Bc7+ Kxd4 Table base win Or 77 ...Kg6 78 Ke4 Kg7 79 Rc8 Kf6 80 f4 (if the pawn on d4 falls eg 80 ..Ba5 81 Kxd4 its a table base win) Ke7 81 f5 Kf6 82 Rc2 Ke7 (82 ..d3 83 Rc6+ Kg5 84 Rg6+ and Kxd3 = TB win) 83 Ke5 Kf7 84 Rb2 d3 85 f6 with a simple win
a1)..75..Bd4 (instead of Rd4) 76 Kd3 Ba1+ 77 Ke4 Ra5 78 Rg8+ Kf6 79 Rc6+ Kf7 80 Rgc8 Ra4+ 81 Rc4 Rxc4+ (black cannot avoid exchanging) 82 Rxc4+ and this ending like the one above is completely won. eg 82... Ke6 (82...a5 83 Rc5 a4 84 Ra5 x a4 = TB win) 83 Rc6+ Kd7 84 Kd5 Bd4 85 Rh6 a5 (any Bishop moves loses a pawn = TB win) 86 Rh7+ Kd8 87 f4 x e5 = TB win
b) If the Bishop does not go to b6 the white king gets via e3 to e4 and then penetrates through the white squares d5 and e6 and its over. Sample lines:
b1) 72 ..Kf4/f5 73 Rf8+ Kg6 74 Ke3 Rd1 75 Ke4 Re1+ 76 Kd5 Be7 77 Re8 Bf6 78 Ke6 e4 79 Rc5+ and the bishop is lost
b2) 72..Ba5 73 Ke3 Rb5 74 Rg8+ Kf5 75 Rf8+ Kg5 76 Ke4 Rb4+ 77 Kxe5 with a simple win
b3)72 ..Rd7 73 Rxe5+ (take a pair of rooks off = TB win) Kf4 74 Rcc5 Rg7 75 Re4+ Kg3 76 Rc1 Bb6 77 Rh1 a5 78 Rhh4 - Reg4+ exchanges rooks = TB win
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 07:33:54)
my own fault!
Ok Thibault! My good news for Mark meant I was winning so I was reducing the burden of his games - he wouldnt qualify so he has less games !! :)hence the title on my post. I think I should have been a bit more specific!
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 12:21:49)
Correction
In the analysis given below in "Its a win" under a) I omitted the move 86 Ra6 for white. It should read "85 Ra6 Bc7+ 86 Kxd4 with Table base win" and not "85 Bc7+ Kxd4 with Table base win"
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-19 17:17:59)
Adjudications
Hi Benjamin I am not sure what you mean by help people without asking.
The rules refer to adjudications as follows:
"11. 5. Adjudications
In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious."
At the end of 11.5 is states: "There are no time limit for games else but the clocks, but it may be announced that certain multi-stages tournaments will have one. At the end of this time limit, a referee committee will adjudicate games."
Obviously it was bit worrying without warning to have an announcement saying hey seems like a draw I am going to adjudicate. A draw would mean that I would not win the tournament - a win means I win the tournament so its an important game.
But as I am certain the game is won and can demonstrate this I am not concerned - I have no idea what Janos thinks. I dont think this is the best way to handle this but this is where we are - I am just glad it happened after Janos played 63...Kxf4 which was the losing move. We are only about 12 moves away from 6 man table base wins in almost all cases. Please post any anlysis about the position you would like as Thibault has asked for comment
Benjamin Block (2008-08-19 18:05:13)
Yes it is white win!
I can found win but it will take a lots of move maybe in around the 100 move white will win.
Normajean Yates (2008-08-21 11:15:31)
that is quite convincing!
Marc Lacrosse - thanks for quoting that ... though a good algorithm shouldnt have trouble but with heavily nested variations, many of then terminating 0-1 .. it would complicate algorithms. Programmers' time is expensive ...
I am convinced now that allowing O-O and O-O-O is a good decision - then yacc and lex can do most of the parsing etc.
[btw it should be simple to write a program to convert simple algebaraic (by simple I mean nested variations are treated as comments and left untouched) to simple descriptive and vice versa, in the formal case without redundancy in descriptive output. [again lex-yacc (or whatever latest tools have superceded them) can do most of the work]. So it is surprising I couldn't find any such free open-source utility on the internet -- (and I am too lazy now to write simplest code any more - written more than enough for a lifetime ;) )
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-08-21 15:12:17)
Re
In marsian terms, my goal is to get to final and win all white games. And probably get first place in LG thematic. :)
Normajean Yates (2008-08-21 21:57:07)
Latvian thematic: white must win.
I propose a latvian thematic where white must win (ie a draw will be counted as loss for white).
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 19:01:06)
Game 18078 : win
Game 18078 is finally adjudicated as a win for Andrew. Sorry to Janos, that's a pity it can't finish but it is really necessary so that the next cycle can start.
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-08-23 09:07:33)
Wasted time
I understand the point about 5 players being a small group but I used up my holidays trying to beat Janos what would have happened if the game was a draw who would have been invited?? Janos twice offered a draw and frankly the only reason I did not accept was because I followed the rules and believed I needed to win to qualify for the final. How were you going to determine who to invite?? You knew that this situation was going to arise from the moment stage 2 started as there were only 4 groups and 1 M group there could only be 5 winners.
Not only that but when I raised the issue of Marcs earlier partcipiation in round robin final I actually stated that this time as we will have 5 winners then the sitaution would not arise the group is complete so no invitations arise and in your reply you agreed I do not see why it is too late please comply with the rules as you have no right to invite other players in the rules do not allow it. Saying the administrators decision is final is saying you can suddenly change any rule at any time for any reason.
I now face 6 opponents instead of 4 without any vacation time.
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!
Normajean Yates (2008-08-25 11:37:14)
click on the printer icon.
Don, in 'my games' there is a printer icon left of 'runnung games' etc: click on that, you get a popup window which has all your games in a pgn file. copy all and paste into a text file. Now you have a multigame pgn file; for microsoft OS's rename it <whatever>.pgn.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-09 18:27:21)
Kramnik vs. Rybka / Zhukov
Posted by Larry Kaufman in Rybka forum : "According to GM Roman Dzindzichashvili quoting GM Sosonko who says he was present, a two game minimatch was held recently between former World Champion Vladimir Kramnik and Russian Chess Federation President Alexander Zhukov, at a serious time limit, with the following condition: Every fourth move, Zhukov was allowed to consult with Rybka for three minutes."
The complete discussion :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=7270
Around cheating in OTB chess, interesting...
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-12 14:39:49)
Rybka 3.0 about 2300 at FICGS ?
According to Larry Kaufman from Rybka team in the discussion linked above :
"If we assume that both sides have the same opening book, then I think two things are fairly safe to say:
1. A good human chessplayer (or even a bad one with good centaur skills) + same Rybka will win a long match from unassisted Rybka.
2. In any individual game, the chance of a draw is fairly high. (...) I mean more than half the games, but not way more. The actual draw percentage depends very heavily on the opening book used."
I agree with that, so I assume that Rybka 3.0 thinking at least 24 hours per move would have a correspondence chess rating of about 2300 at FICGS.
Any opinion ?
Benjamin Block (2008-09-13 14:01:21)
Rybka vs 1900 man.
Rybka will win that game if the player not are under rankad.
But what about 2100 vs computer?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-15 20:54:47)
Wikichess : Update !
Now you can see strong improvements in Wikichess articles :
- Opening ECO code
- Name of the opening
- Moves played at FICGS
- Find games played at FICGS
- Statistics (White wins, Black wins, Draws)...
Thanks to report any bug.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-09-28 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."
Denis Ivanchenkov (2008-09-29 23:53:53)
By the way ...
Just look for the folowing document in the internret (I hope that unlike spellchecker you DO HAVE Internet):
Regional an minority languages and cultures in France are outlaws
addressed to :
The committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights CESCR
Josef Riha (2008-09-30 09:01:07)
copy games
No problem :-)
Very dubious! I've done this several times and it works.
After loading the .pgn file into the GUI you must change to your database and in that window click on the 'add game' icon(I don't know how it is written in the English version). A dialogue appears where you can edit some datas. With OK it is saved.
I hope you don't misunderstand my extensive description:-)
An easier way is to create a new game and parallel to FICGS you enter the moves done by you and your opponent.
Greetings, Josef.
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2008-09-30 19:29:45)
Maybe use Chessbase 8-9-10 or light
The problem is Fritz is not designed as database you have more flexibility using Chessbase.
After downloading the game ( it is saved as pgn ) You need to open that game and choose File-Save As- Here you are given the choice to save the game to a database of your choice, for example, lets create My FICGS games, open Chessbase, File-New Database-and create your database in any place you want, generally My documents-Chessbase-etc. So after you have created your database open the downloaded game , again I suggest open it with Chessbase, and choose File-Save As- and put it in the database we created My FICGS games, voila.
In Fritz creating a database takes 2 more clicks. First go to File-Open database or F12 then in that window choose File-New database or Ctrl+X , and the the same procedure as above. Choose your path , name it, then open your downloaded game(s)and Save As, choose the database of your preferences.
Even in chessbase light this is possible, but the number of games in each database is restricted to 50,000 I believe.
Hope this helps
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.
Marcus Miranda (2008-10-02 21:33:27)
time limit is part of the game
I believe that time is part of the game, if you let your time run out then that's it.
In my opinion you should not cancel your wins in these games because you think that the position would lead to a draw, just ask yourself: what would be the position if your opponent did not have used more time than permitted? When a game lost on time is adjudicated to a draw or not rated, it says that time is not that important.
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........
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.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-10-03 22:42:17)
Psychology
I give an edge to Kramnik not in terms of chess ability or strength but he seems stronger psychologically more able to take the pressure. On the other hand the match is a bit short 8 games which I think is good for Anand. Finally Anand is favourite in the tie break games. For me the key opening questions are: Whats kramniks e4 defence? my bet is at least 1 outing for the Marshall which Anand has performed badly against and the Caro Kahn (which Kramnik has hardly ever played) and no Petroff at all! I think Anand will stick with his semi slav. After his problem in the Leko match Anand will not be able to surprise Kramnik with 1 d4! My prediction: either 1 win and the rest drawn for Kramnik in the classical games or an Anand win in the rapid tie breaks.
William Taylor (2008-10-04 12:49:16)
Very hard to pick
It's very hard to say who will win, but I'd slightly favour Kramnik - I just can't imagine him being beaten in a match.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-05 20:30:11)
Go ratings, rule update
In order to limit the inflation of Go ratings, I've updated the rules for ratings superior or equal to 2000. The idea of the original rule was to help players to find their rating range more quickly only.
"Go ratings are first estimated from Go ranks (n kyu give a 2100 - 100 * n rating, n dan give a 2000 + 100 * n rating, n dan pro give a 2630 + 30 * n rating), then adjusted in real time after each result :
Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a loss against a player rated more than 350 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 350."
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
Sebastian Boehme (2008-10-06 19:39:00)
Sort of a hierarchy here
Well it is quite simple, the best engine on best hardware. Anyway good that at least Junior and Cluster Toga managed to get a draw from Rybka.
Too bad Hiarcs played such a bad opening, or there had also been a chance for maybe a draw.
Anyway congrats again to Rybka team for this win!
Scott Nichols (2008-10-09 01:54:55)
Pawn promotion
Can someone clear up just how exactly to promote a pawn to something other than a Queen here. Not knowing just cost me a frigging half a point! :(
Iouri Basiliev (2008-10-09 10:32:43)
Scott
Normally you should see all 4 possible pieses Q,R,N,B on the pop-up window. Do your browser allows pop-up?
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.
Scott Nichols (2008-10-11 00:04:22)
promotion
Thanks Louri, the pop-up window was what I was waiting for, and when it didn't show I knew I was sunk, :(. And it had to happen in the WCH tourney also.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-17 23:13:19)
Game 3
GM Kramnik (2772) - GM Anand (2783) [D49]
WCh Bonn GER (3), 17.10.2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5 axb5 12.exf6 gxf6 13.0-0 Qb6 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.Bxb5 Bd6 16.Rd1 Rg8 17.g3 Rg4 18.Bf4 Bxf4 19.Nxd4 h5 20.Nxe6 fxe6 21.Rxd7 Kf8 22.Qd3 Rg7 23.Rxg7 Kxg7 24.gxf4 Rd8 25.Qe2 Kh6 26.Kf1 Rg8 27.a4 Bg2+ 28.Ke1 Bh3 29.Ra3 Rg1+ 30.Kd2 Qd4+ 31.Kc2 Bg4 32.f3 Bf5+ 33.Bd3 Bh3 34.a5 Rg2 35.a6 Rxe2+ 36.Bxe2 Bf5+ 37.Kb3 Qe3+ 38.Ka2 Qxe2 39.a7 Qc4+ 40.Ka1 Qf1+ 41.Ka2 Bb1+ 0-1
A nice win by Viswanathan.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-21 02:49:33)
Game 5
Wow, Anand is now leading 3.5 - 1.5 after only 5 games and 2 wins with the Black pieces, a real surprise...
GM Kramnik (2772) - GM Anand (2783) [D49]
WCh Bonn GER (5), 20.10.2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 e6 5.e3 Nbd7 6.Bd3 dxc4 7.Bxc4 b5 8.Bd3 a6 9.e4 c5 10.e5 cxd4 11.Nxb5 axb5 12.exf6 gxf6 13.0-0 Qb6 14.Qe2 Bb7 15.Bxb5 Rg8 16.Bf4 Bd6 17.Bg3 f5 18.Rfc1 f4 19.Bh4 Be7 20.a4 Bxh4 21.Nxh4 Ke7 22.Ra3 Rac8 23.Rxc8 Rxc8 24.Ra1 Qc5 25.Qg4 Qe5 26.Nf3 Qf6 27.Re1 Rc5 28.b4 Rc3 29.Nxd4 Qxd4 30.Rd1 Nf6 31.Rxd4 Nxg4 32.Rd7+ Kf6 33.Rxb7 Rc1+ 34.Bf1 Ne3 35.fxe3 fxe3 0-1
Iouri Basiliev (2008-10-21 14:10:51)
LG
The games are over. Steel do not 100% sure about 3.Bc4, the game Ilmars-Michael needs to be analysed, but 3.Nxe5 simply wins. Anyhow, it was nice to study deeply this opening imho. Thanx to all players!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-21 17:54:17)
Pre-arranged or not
... that's the eternal question. Let's see how the match finishes, I doubt to see Anand winning by +2 or more with no ambiguity, unlike the last Kramnik versus Deep Fritz match. We will see.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-24 01:19:36)
Game 7
GM Anand (2783) - GM Kramnik (2772) [D19]
WCh Bonn GER (7), 23.10.2008
1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Nc3 dxc4 5.a4 Bf5 6.e3 e6 7.Bxc4 Bb4 8.0-0 Nbd7 9.Qe2 Bg6 10.e4 0-0 11.Bd3 Bh5 12.e5 Nd5 13.Nxd5 cxd5 14.Qe3 Re8 15.Ne1 Bg6 16.Bxg6 hxg6 17.Nd3 Qb6 18.Nxb4 Qxb4 19.b3 Rac8 20.Ba3 Qc3 21.Rac1 Qxe3 22.fxe3 f6 23.Bd6 g5 24.h3 Kf7 25.Kf2 Kg6 26.Ke2 fxe5 27.dxe5 b6 28.b4 Rc4 29.Rxc4 dxc4 30.Rc1 Rc8 31.g4 a5 32.b5 c3 33.Rc2 Kf7 34.Kd3 Nc5+ 35.Bxc5 Rxc5 36.Rxc3 Rxc3+ 37.Kxc3 1/2-1/2
5 more games... Kramnik must win 3 times and draw 2 !
Normajean Yates (2008-10-24 15:28:48)
in a while is right...
The new theory that has come up has to be looked at seriously first... only one draw so far, rest all are white wins!
I wonder if black managed to win or has chances in any game in the iccf latvian tourney that llmars is playing in...
Ilmars Cirulis (2008-10-25 20:40:00)
Update
I checked it and it seems now that after 12.Qg5 Nfd4 13.Qxd8 white wins.
Normajean Yates (2008-10-26 08:08:02)
but the point is...
Against the latvian - at least in correspondence - if white wants to win rather than research then white will play the main line 3..Nxe5.
Garvin Gray (2008-10-27 05:23:28)
Intentional?
With the adding of seven days, I am now showing that in some games I have more than 59 days to make my next move.
Is this intentional?
Normajean Yates (2008-10-29 18:23:20)
to Iouri Basiliev
But we agree with you! Only, it is not mathematically proven, and we do NOT hope to prove it, so we want to increase the likelihood that the statement is true :) Or, at least we want to reduce the margin of error [all in the Bayesian paradigm]
Bayesian because - if you talk of conventional probability P rather than likelihood, then if P is the probability that the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 is a win for white, then either P=0 or P=1 [as chess is a complete information game], only we do not know whether P=0 or P=1.
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
Don Groves (2008-10-30 22:26:08)
To Marc
I like the idea of not allowing one's clock to become greater than the stated length of the game! That should be applied to all games, regardless of length. Right now I have some games with 75 days on my clock. If I decided to quit one of those games, my opponent would have to wait 75 days to get the win!
Normajean Yates (2008-10-31 03:17:50)
replies to thibault's question..
1. No, computers cannot yet. Not even near. Afaik not even 'strongly conjectured to be a white win' or 'strongly conjectured draw' (3x3 chess has been strongly solved - it is not really a game because there is no suitable starting position - but there are complete tablebases for every legal placement of chess pieces on a 3x3 board. I posted the links in a forum thread a few months ago...)
2. Why this variant is special -
if you think about it, 5x5 chess is the smallest notrivial *natural* contraction of 8x8 chess.
Plus - or that is why - it was thought of many decades ago - as far as I remember, when Martin Gardner mentioned it about 25 years ago in his column 'mathematical games' in the USA-based science magazine 'Scientific American', he was merely mentioning it, he hadn't invented it...
I am waiting for one bigchess opponent to time out before going on 15-day chess-leave -- [she (Nicola) would have timed out on 27 Oct but it got extended because of the 7-day addition to clocks owing to server change] --- then I plan to find out the current state of 5x5 - whether some university etc. is researching it, etc. If there are results that indicate forced draw (or win) then I agree that there is not much point in doing it here...
Normajean Yates (2008-10-31 03:38:44)
similarly,smallest natural *extension*-
similarly, what is the *smallest* natural *extension* of chess? [Again I am reposting this idea - i did it a few months ago]
Think about it this way, as far as way of moving is concerned, [keeping aside pawns for the moment] you have R, B, N moving in essentially different ways. Q = R + B as far as movement is concerned - i.e. a queen can move like a rook or like a bishop, as the player chooses. The movement of the Q is nothing more and nothing less.
So, to extend chess minimally and naturally [therefore extending the symmetry also] IMO the natural choice of new pice would be a piece which I call the superqueen, lets call it U [because S is knight in chess problems and in many non-english roman-script languages..]. The superqueen U moves like a R, a B, or a N, according to mover's choice. In other words, it moves like a Q or a N.
movewise, U = R + B + N = Q + N.
Now keeping symmetry and minimality in mind we get 10x10 chess with the following starting position:
rnbqukqbnr/pppppppppp/10/10/10/10/10/10/PPPPPPPPPP/RNBQUKQBNR.
In 10x10 castling O-O and O-O-O, it may be more natural for the king to move *three* squares [and the R crosses the king and goes adjacent to the new position of the king, just like in 8x8 chess.]
Actually long ago (1981-82) we tried this 10x10 a few times with some friends - we used to call *this* 10x10 thing 'big chess' :(
[we used a one-pound coin heads-up and tails-up for white and black superqueen resp.]
But the name bigchess is taken [and bigchess is nice :) ] , so I am just calling it 10x10 chess now..
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!
Normajean Yates (2008-11-02 05:15:50)
does vacation 'freeze' scoring?
One opp of mine is going to time out within 23 hours. I desparately need a vacation from chess, but I don't want 'unfinished business' hanging. So, if I go on 15-day vacation say 5 minutes *after* opponent times out, will the game be still shown as won by me within 1-2 days? Or will the recogition that the game has ended [in a win by me] be also 'frozen' for 15 days i.e. until my vacation is over?
Wayne Lowrance (2008-11-03 18:30:23)
Quick chess
Well seems to be a lot of interest here by many players. My thoughts on super short games here are, if that is what you all want I am for it.
I wont enter most likely any super short games however. The original post of 10 days + a increment of 4 hrs/moves is too fast for ole gramps here. Like several have commented here, allowing time build up to enormous value is very very bad. I agree with Don and Mark on these notions. I think the suggestion of not allowing the timer to exceed the base limit is practical and VERY desireable Thibault ! I like the discussion on this topic, It is good.
Normajean Yates (2008-11-04 12:28:45)
n queens - number of solutions: n<=15
The following table gives the number of solutions for n queens, both unique (sequence A002562 in OEIS) and distinct (sequence A000170 in OEIS).
for n =1 to 15: n queens: no. of solutions:
distinct: 1,0,0,2,10,4,40,92,352,724,2680,14200,
73712,365596,2279184.
up to symmetry:
1,0,0,1,2,1,6,12,46,92,341,1787,9233,
45752,285053.
So the 5 queens prob has two solutions, but the 6 queens prob has only one! [for 5 quuens, by rotating and/or reflecting them you get total 10 solutions which you got.]
Exercise: modify your java applet to give essentially different solutions only i.e. eliminate 'duplicate solutions' i.e. solutions which are identical except for rotation and/or reflexion. First step: e.g. for 5 queens check placement of a-queen on a1,a2, a3 only [a solution with a4 will be a reflexion of a solution ith a2.]
Don Groves (2008-11-05 08:02:06)
8 x 8 chess variant
There is another way to foil the computers and re-energize chess: A screen is placed between the two sides of the chess board and each player places their pieces on the board in accordance with two rules: (1) one pawn on each file; (2) no piece past its own third rank. Then the screen is removed and the game begins with White's first move.
Opening books become useless (requiring the computer to begin using its clock from the first move) and the usual endgames will rarely occur (although endgame databases are obviously still useful).
Knowing your opponent's tendencies becomes even more valuable than in the normal game.
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-09 00:08:30)
Fire on board...
Open letter by Gata Kamsky :
"Dear President, gentelmen, Susan,
When I first saw Bill's letter I was happy, because finally USCF has been showing strong support for their representative. Whether there could be a better solution or a more diplomatic one is a good question, but the reality is that there is no time to negotiate and given FIDE's strong-arm history of negotiating, it is not likely to succeed.
When I spoke with FIDE Vice President Mr. Makropoulos in Greece, it was decided that both my team and Mr. Topalov's team would meet during the rest day at the Olympiad in Dresden to negotiate and discuss everything, including technical details. With their last public statement, Mr. Illumjinov not only attempted to revoke his personal guarantee of the match, but he also imposed the time limit of one week for the players to acceed to his demands and at the same time re-awarded the bid to the Bulgarian Federation, which was the original FIDE's intention in the first place. You all are aware of the clause in the FIDE regulation for this "special" match that gave the Bulgarian Chess Federation a privilege of matching any bid that is coming from my side, which effectively ruined any attempt to find and submit a bid from the United States.
Throughout the negotiations with my managers, FIDE did nothing to find a sponsor on their own, despite the fact that it was solely FIDE's decision to create this match, and thus to allow Mr. Topalov a backdoor into the final steps of the qualification proceedings for the world championship title, quite unfairly, I might add.
FIDE's entire purpose, for chess players, for fairness, has been changed into a special interest group organization and I personally believe that any negotiations with FIDE rulers or tsars, or whatever you like to call them, will be unsuccessful.
The time for the negotiation is over and the only way to fight FIDE is to expose their mistakes, and perhaps fight them in a court of law if and when FIDE broke the law. Therefore, I would respectfully request all USCF Board members to unite and find ways to make sure that justice and fairness will prevail.
Sincerely,
Gata Kamsky
Saturday, November 8, 2008"
More informations on Chessbase news :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5004
Normajean Yates (2008-11-10 00:22:58)
more spoonfeeding to Ben Milton..
Go to 'Search Games'.
You see your name on top.
then, a line. ----------------. like this.
Below the line, you can see:
CHESS All games (PGN)
If you are using Microsoft Windows, right-click on 'All games (PGN)'.
[I do not think that, with the amount of spoonfeeding, you need, linux is suitable for you o:) ]
After that, if you *still* do not know what to do, pray to God. But there is no God! :(
Download-managers are not for Ben
They'll put too much stren on his bren. ;)
Normajean Yates (2008-11-13 11:28:36)
no more posts from me re 'God'. :)
Just to remind rodolfo: 'the silence of god' is not one film, it is a trilogy as I said i.e. the collective name of three films:
1. Through a Glass Darkly (Swedish: Såsom i en spegel ("As in a mirror"))
2. Winter Light (Swedish: Nattvardsgästerna)
3. The Silence (Swedish: Tystnaden).
Normajean Yates (2008-11-13 15:09:03)
to rodolfo: another strange coincidence
So we have two Ingmar Bergmans and three Ingrid Bergmans:
1.Your friend's husband and your friend.
2. The famous film director and his last wife [she was Ingrid, and took the husband's surname after marrying him]
3. The famous female actor Ingrid Begman, who was never Ingmar Bergman's wife! :)
PS: films reminded me: has Telesur started showing more literary and artistic programs? My friend Tariq Ali is on the board of advisors of Telesur, and he keep pressing them...
Anyway, please convey my greetings and solidarity message to President Chávez!
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
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-11-16 14:04:19)
Loss on time
Hello Tano-Urayoán Russi Román,
your kind of destiny hasn't been meant by me. Yor've my sympathy!
Players I've meant are knowing.
Normajean Yates (2008-11-18 15:29:20)
some more on P2P..
1. to thibault: *enable* encryption, do not *force* encryption [unless you are doing 'private' pre-arranged P2P :) ]. If you force encryption then you will probably get too few peers.
2. P2P: well, until early last year there were no flacs - now there are a few and it will keep growing ;) Also, lots of DVD images - dont you see all those 4.3 GB and 8 GB torrents for *one* film? Just go to http://isohunt.com [for privacy, use https://isohunt.com] and see!
if cue - bin files or .iso files are available you can just play these virtual cd/dvds through daemon-tools or winmount - you need not even burn them!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-20 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 (2008-11-21 19:58:44)
Two consecutive plays
Wikipedia will explain it better than I can do :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_holdem
In brief, after the flop (1st, 2nd & 3rd card), the turn (4th card) or the river (5th card), the first player to bet is always the one following the dealer, whoever played just before.
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.
Ben Milton (2008-11-24 09:00:44)
Request
Would it be possible to represent the cards at the final show hand differently, I mean instead of showing the best 5 cards show the 5 cards dealth next to the 2 cards of the player.
Don Groves (2008-11-25 09:36:53)
1433 char chess engine
He should have sent it in to one of the contests where the object is to guess what the program does. Likely a easy winner...
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2008-11-25 11:54:03)
1433 Char Chess Engine
It compiles with mingw32 as a windows console application I used Dev-c++, which is a freeware ide that wraps the mingw compiler ...
Normajean Yates (2008-11-25 20:27:58)
Don, no it wouldnt...
Have you seen some of the 'obfuscated c contest' winning entries? Those programs are deliberately obfuscated: while in these ones the obfuscation is a side effect of the goal of keeping program size small.
Now if someone could also incorporate Q-search and forward pruning and the 'standard' extensions within 5000 characters...
On a side note: program optimisation [below algorithm level] also obfuscates code - I know: I was consulted as program optimisation specialist from 1988-1991. But *there* one *keeps* the original slow-but-structured version, only commented out. In fact, one '#define's a boolean switch in a small file; so that with a one-character change in that file one can switch between the structured code and and the fast code.
Normajean Yates (2008-11-25 22:07:41)
thanks rodolfo...
for compiling to windows-console code I used to use djgpp, the GPL dos port of gcc [gnu c/c++ compiler]- but starting windows 98SE specially graphics programs complied with djgpp dont work any more ... I'll try mingw32 + Dev-c++..
Francisco Gramajo (2008-11-26 18:43:12)
Best hand or best played hand?
Any hand can be the best, when is played correctly... and that depends on prior hands. Not in the cards showing up.
A good hand?
I just had one full house K-K-K-10-10 ironically I was playing for K-K-2-2-2 or 10-10-2-2-2 or 10-10-10-2-2.
For me the way to play is the key.
Later we can discusse about the algorithm to generate cards.
Thanks for this website, it is amazing!
Thibault de Vassal (2008-11-26 21:58:40)
Time controls for Holdem
Correspondence time controls (> 1 day) are very delicate to manage. If we set an increment inferior to 1 day, it may provoke some problems with a few players trying to find some tricks to win on time or at least to keep a time pressure on their opponents (most players sleep during the night yet :)). With the current time control, most players still seem to play fastly and, of course, do not hope to win on time. And last but not least, this is much less stressful than rapid chess tournaments :)
However the maximum days could be inferior for poker, that's right, but let's see... I'm not sure it is really necessary to change something yet.
Don Groves (2008-11-27 06:55:14)
Show all cards at showdown
It appears that in some cases, both player's hole cards are not shown. I have had two cases now where, if the caller loses, only the hole cards of the winner are shown.
All players in a showdown have the right to see all the cards, even the loser's hole cards. The winner has the right to see what the loser called with.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-11-30 11:43:57)
Is Marshall attack ....
... good enough for a win on high level correspondence chess???
You can make your own mind with a look at 4 games of WCH_CANDIDATES_FINAL_000002 (# 23018, 23019, 23020, 23021) where Black played an unusual defence which could have fundamental importance of judgement this opening!
Hannes Rada (2008-11-30 20:20:20)
Good for white !?
Currently I am playing with white a decisive game at the Austria championship against the Marshall
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.O-O Be7 6.Re1 b5 7.Bb3 O-O 8.c3 d5 9.exd5 Nxd5 10.Nxe5 Nxe5 11.Rxe5 c6 12.d4 Bd6 13.Re1 Qh4 14.g3 Qh3 15.Re4 g5 16.Qf1 Qh5 17.Nd2 Bf5 18.f3 Nf6
19.Qg2 Nxe4 20.Nxe4 Qg6 21.g4 Bxe4 22.fxe4 Rae8 23.Bc2 Qh6 24.e5 Bxe5 25.dxe5 Rxe5 26.Bd2 Qe6 27.Bb3 Qe7 28.Qf2 c5 29.Re1 c4 30.Rxe5 Qxe5 31.Bd1 h6 32.Qe3 Re8 33.Qxe5 Rxe5
34.Bf3 f5 35.gxf5 Rxf5 36.Bb7 *
The endgame 2 bishops vs 1 Rook + Pawn looks good for white. Black did not have any attacking changes in this game and white quite a comfortable game. However I am not quite sure if white can win it.
Hannes Rada (2008-11-30 21:43:01)
Attack ?
You are right Wolfang.
But I thought, that you played these so called attack for winning purposes :-)
If black want's or must win, I think that Sicilian gives better chances.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 08:15:20)
Marshall to win..
At cc no real chance for a black win but not easy for white to get much chance either. Although I dont know if many cc players want to go through the extended end game suffering Wolfgang seems to enjoy :)15...a5!? looks like a simpler less masochistic way to get the draw rather than Wolfgangs 15...Rae8 Still why Caire plays exactly the same variation of the Marshall in all 4 white games????? - against a higher rated opponent it makes no match sense at all. I suppose your not going to lose games on time playing the same variation:):)
Marc Lacrosse (2008-12-01 08:45:01)
To Andrew
"(...)why Caire plays exactly the same variation of the Marshall in all 4 white games????? - against a higher rated opponent it makes no match sense at all. I suppose your not going to lose games on time playing the same variation:)"
Hi Andrew in my FICGS__CHESS__WCH_QUARTER_FINAL_3__000005 playing the exact same variation in my four black games was the key to win the match: all four were drawn whereas I managed to win 3.5/4 in my four white games (with four variations of one of these silly sideline sicilians you seem not to praise too much).
... what is the optimal strategy for these matches remains to be determined. The "all-draws-favors-higher-rating" rule is very interesting. I like it very much.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-01 13:26:56)
Not exactly a bug
Hi Don, well actually the game ended after the last hand, that's why you can't see it anymore in "My games". You probably received the result by email, but the only way to see your last opponent's hand is to view the game :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=26306
Three of a kind wins against two pair :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 15:34:03)
cant argue...
..with your results Marc. However the current champion won FICGS with exactly the strategy I favour and exactly the opposite to your strategy. So thats powerful evidence in favour of the varying openings approach. Well done on winning your match - lets see how far you get with your strategy. As for these side line sicilians I never called them silly Marc your being over sensitive. I thought that it was easy to equalise against them and get a draw at cc. I still believe that and proved it in our game. However I do think your opponent (as black) was playing ambitiously to win! Now thats a different story .....
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 15:37:40)
cant argue...
..with your results Marc. However the current champion won FICGS with exactly the strategy I favour and exactly the opposite to your strategy. So thats powerful evidence in favour of the varying openings approach. Well done on winning your match - lets see how far you get with your strategy. As for these side line sicilians I never called them silly Marc your being over sensitive. I thought that it was easy to equalise against them and get a draw at cc. I still believe that and proved it in our game. However I do think your opponent (as black) was playing ambitiously to win! Now thats a different story .....
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-01 21:31:30)
15...a5!?
May be easier! Are there known any games?
My idea was it to show, that white endgame ressources (neither by material nor by development) are not big enough for a win! Would be a fundamental investigation of this opening's worth.
But Hannes is right - better to name it Marshall defence.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-01 22:09:55)
15...a5!?
I dont know of any games but when I was following the game and before 15 ...Rae8 I started investigating this move and the more I looked at it the more I liked it - its a very annoying move for white at just the right moment. However Wolfgangs approach seemed to work I just would not have had the courage to enter those endgames
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-03 11:52:54)
Armenia wins the Olympiads
Round 11 results :
Bo. 7 France (FRA) Rtg
-
4 Azerbaijan (AZE) Rtg
1,5 : 2,5
6.1 GM Bacrot Etienne 2705
-
GM Radjabov Teimour 2752
Ŋ-Ŋ
6.2 GM Vachier-Lagrave Maxime 2716
-
GM Mamedyarov Sh. 2731
Ŋ-Ŋ
6.3 GM Fressinet Laurent 2676
-
GM Gashimov Vugar 2703
Ŋ-Ŋ
6.4 GM Tkachiev Vladislav 2664
-
GM Huseynov Gadir 2650
0-1
Final results after round 11 :
Rk. Team Code Games + = - TB1 TB2 TB3 TB4
1 Armenia ARM 11 9 1 1 19 400,5 152,0 31,0
2 Israel ISR 11 8 2 1 18 377,5 149,0 28,0
3 USA USA 11 8 1 2 17 362,0 146,0 29,0
4 Ukraine UKR 11 7 3 1 17 348,5 163,0 25,5
5 Russia RUS 11 7 2 2 16 375,0 156,0 27,0
6 Azerbaijan AZE 11 7 2 2 16 359,5 147,0 29,0
7 China CHN 11 7 2 2 16 357,5 150,0 27,0
8 Hungary HUN 11 7 2 2 16 341,5 140,0 27,5
9 Vietnam VIE 11 7 2 2 16 340,0 137,0 29,0
10 Spain ESP 11 7 2 2 16 337,5 142,0 27,5
22 France FRA 11 6 2 3 14 295,0 147,0 25,0
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-06 20:07:17)
Hotmail bug fixed
Now it is possible to add friends from Hotmail (hotmail.com only), the bug has been fixed.
If you have more than 100 contacts, you may win 10 Epoints in seconds to play money games :)
Andrew Stephenson (2008-12-06 21:51:23)
Reaching a peak
My gut feeling is that rating improvements will tail off and we will not see any program crack 3400. I dont know the sales figures but looking for example at New In chess analysis by Carlsen he seems to use only Rybka and perhaps this program is becoming completely dominant among GM's. Perhaps the biggest impact will be hardware improvements allowing faster deeper analysis. This will mean fewer points missed and quicker conclusions as the time needed for the program to dig into the position shortens. You can still see examples of theoretical analysis in recent New in Chess Year books where misjudgements have been made because they needed to keep the program running a bit longer to see the evaluation flip but I think this will decrease ........
Normajean Yates (2008-12-11 01:46:47)
my response...
Excellent, thought provoking article.
About subconscious thinking - I am in two minds: as an existentialist I am uncomfortable with the concept: yet there are memory/thought acts which bear no other explanation yet. The famous existentialist psychiatrist R.D.Laing who applied Sartre's work to psychiatry, also did not dwell on this issue, really..
I believe it is partly volition, partly innate - the innate part being proneness to 'subconscious', involuntary and in particular obsessive-compulsive thought patterns in OCD or in certain bipolar depressive states [I am bipolar depressive type 2], which responds to high-dose fluoxetine...
I am more comfortable with the part of the article I quote in the next paragraph, although there no reason we should have a specifically '*chess* pattern-recogniser organ' [1] - more likely we have an innate but more general 'chessy' pattern-recogniser-faculty ('organ') which takes in chess too. [our music-hearing faculty i.e. the ear can hear music, but not only music..] *This* is what the author Rune Vik-Hansen means, I am certain.
[from the article:] 'Playing on Noam Chomskys LAD, or Language Acquisition Device, we might say that chess players are guided and supported by a, perhaps slightly Kantian sounding, CAD; Chess Acquisition Device, making is possible to display sound chess judgment which foundation is the subtle interplay between knowing what to keep and what to discard among triggered moves and in the final part of this article, we will have a closer look as how to increase and improve our chess judgment to form better decisions over the board.'
I will only add that subsequent investigations and deeper questioning of de Groot's subjects (experimented chessplayers? ;-) ) has shown that this faculty/device/organ is less important to chess ability than de Groot thought...
[1] I am calling this presumed faculty/device an 'organ', just like Noam Chomsky occasionally does [in his *linguistics* output, not in his *political* output! :)] - even if you choose to think of it as just a metaphor, it is a very hepful and suggestive metaphor.
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."
Normajean Yates (2008-12-17 05:15:54)
another point..
3-fold repitition is automatic draw here I see --- doesnt opp want to make 'last freindly comment in case of draw?' [the same logic why checkmate is not automatic win here]
Matteo Tognela (2008-12-25 16:56:46)
Small Linux script - pgn to clipboard
I know it's not of vital importance... but looking for some more automatic way to copy to clipboard the moves from a game window, say to be pasted into db software, I I've written this little bash script.
(this requires xclip to be installed; for the rest I make reference to gnome&firefox, but it should work also in other environments)
#!/bin/bash
#content of grabpgn
xclip -i -selection clipboard $1
exit
...chmode +x grabpgn, and then associate the extension pgn to be opened with it (in gnome it's quite easy, but for sure there's some conf file where you can do it manually)
Then from a game window, click the "download" button, and in the dialog box, select "open" and check "always perform this action on similar files".
Done! now when you hit "Download" you end up with the game in your clipboard, ready to be pasted wherever you want.
(you can still download it with a right click on the link)
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-25 19:24:04)
Thank you, ...
... but I'm knowing, that my "win" over Francois was not convincing. I was playing with the rules on my side - in final will be the rules on side of Xavier!
Merry christmas for all!
Hannes Rada (2008-12-25 21:12:07)
Game 1
looked very promising for White.
Without deeper looking into the position I thought that white is going to win here. But than I found that black has perpetual check due to his pair of rooks. With only 1 rook on booth side, i think white should win.
Wolfang, have you analysed a possible exchange of rooks at move no. 51
51. Rb7 instead of 51. a4 ?
I did not analyse this position, but at first sight this seems to be a good chance for winning this game.
Can you comment this ?
Gultekin Gumusyazici (2008-12-28 17:25:10)
Chess rating system and Suat Atalik
Primitive Chess Game rules still applied through world competitions does not represent capacity and skills of human brain but a useless rating system that only orders whose photographic memory is higher to cheat others detail improvisions.
I just want to present a past time memory about this hypo.
Suat Atalik Number 1 rated Master Skill here in FICGS was opponent to me
at a simulation of 25 person at Middle East university when he gets fame.
I have started a very defensive game to make him bored crazy. But those boring behaviours caused him to lose
his Queen and game next 3 moves.
What is most interesting that, His Photografic memory aworns him after
he made his moves and passes 3 more players after me. Then, While i congragulate myself with some fucking hand moves, he stood there where he froze and came back to my desk disobeying order. There he stood against me and made his pose as he just
remembered something.
While I was pretending My man there is no hope for just fuck off he hehhehehe,
He asked Ahh sorry i made some misplacement, let go 3 move back and evaluate this situation again.
Man, I am just human I am not machine or Computer Memory.
I can not fight against bots. it is insane.
So I let him score back knowing I am Winner not loser.
Loser he is loser the system he tries to success on.
Chess System applied to rate people with such communities only applies a fake counts depends on bots photoprahic
memories.
And It tries to neglect Humans sensitive intentions on variations.
There exist no bot yet to evaluate humans preferences at a game with advanced chess rules.
Do not you ask me what is those advanced chess rules. Just Imagine them
as not bots can do.
And Cheating is applied on determined systems. Cheating belongs to bots and
botminds.
Sincerely,
Best Chess player nEverknown
Gultekin Gumusyazici (2008-12-28 18:18:43)
Thibault de Vassal
Just Remember Kasparovs's complain about deepblue (bot-robot). He cried "This machine steals my photographic memory and plays as me."
Chess game with common rulez has turned game determines winners whose memory realizes most likely picture of usual games. This is bot behaviour.
Cheating is about neglecting improvements that is not common at pictures adopted as most likely winner moves.
I always try unusual moves to surprize bots. At start I success but then bots
leads game to other direction where most likely picture occurs by not doing move they fail. That is bot cheat. As Atalik has taken moves back.
Gultekin Gumusyazici (2008-12-30 17:18:11)
I am full concerned about it that
Chess is an Statistical game not mathematical. .
As,
However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. (Wind stone at Church hill) say.
That is why bot players need statistical image databases.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-03 19:02:44)
A world champion with no privilege ?!
... finally, looks like even the top GM are decided to kill the show in the FIDE WCH cycle :
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5129
>> Address by Mr Henrik Carlsen on behalf of GM Magnus Carlsen
"(...) In a future Magnus would like to see a world championship cycle with a minimum of privileges, or no privileges at all.
(...) What about the privileges of the reigning World Champion? This is a difficult question but we see strong arguments for reducing the privileges drastically or even abolishing them outright. In the past, with the right to a re-match, a reigning world champion had about 75% chance of retaining the title against an evenly strong opponent, leaving only 25% chance for all the remaining chess players in the world. It was ridiculous. Even without rematches, the 50% chance of today strongly favours the reigning champion. This may have made sense in the past when there were few serious contenders for the title, but today, with about 30 top players within 100 rating points of the top, this is no longer fair."
There are many good points but I'm not sure the game will win at the end. Any opinion ?!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-04 14:14:38)
Rybka 4
Vasik Rajlich wrote a few comments on what can be expected from the Rybka engine/team in 2009 :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=9199
Three engine releases are planned in 2009:
* Rybka 3+ - Rybka 3 playing strength, with bugfixes and cosmetic improvements, for Rybka 3 customers
* Pocket Rybka 3 - published by Convekta/ChessOK, packaged with their Pocket Champion interface, conforms to S. Tsukrov's Pocket-UCI protocol
* Rybka 4 - better search, better eval, new analysis features
"Our tournament goal for 2009 is to win a top freestyle event in 100% automated mode. (...)"
Very interesting, a new challenge for Eros :)
Ben Milton (2009-01-05 16:00:41)
CHALLENGE!!!
I hereby challenge all to 2 games one as black and one as white, to whoever believes they can beat Rybka 3 using tuned Perfect 15 book and depth 23 after opening. This is ofcourse to win my E-points. Any one interested at all?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-06 14:14:28)
How to beat Rybka 3 ?
Hi Ben, the main -enormous- advantage you have over Rybka 3 is of course that you know by advance what she may play at least in "some" cases. At correspondence chess, you have to create a trap according to the horizon's effet (don't remember if this is the correct term) or analysis depth. Well, it may represent several weeks of analysis though, to understand such engine's weaknesses, then to incitate her to follow you in a good line, knowing the book she uses.
Playing against Rybka 3 in a freestyle chess tournament will be even harder, only someone who perfectly knows the engine & has a very good understanding of the game may hope to have a good score (over 60%) against the engine IMO.
Finally a good centaur would have quite good chances to win this match in my opinion.
Ben Milton (2009-01-06 15:24:33)
Thanks
Thank you very much, but the problem is even though i might know what the opponent might play, i still dont know what move to play so it leads to a trap, the best i can do is to go as deep as possible. Also i heard a few things about "IDeA" which is a tool centaurs use to go deeper but unfortunately Fritz 11 does not have that...Any how if youd be willing we can have the games and i am willing to give you all my e-points (12) if you win and if you dont i dont want any e-points in return. I jus want to see the results. How does it sound?
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
Tom Smith (2009-01-12 18:55:18)
Re:
Thank you both for your replies.I understand "but" was meant to mean except.
This brings me back to my original concern, that being engines are actually allowed, IE cheating is allowed, this has made me very reluctant to begin playing on this site, knowing that anyone is allowed to openly cheat!
That seems quite crazy to me, and is the reason that I probably wont start any games, I hope that the site admins or owners see this thread as I am sure that a lot of people will be put off by this bizarre rule.
Thank you again for your replies
Tom Smith (2009-01-12 21:40:28)
Re: Marc
By allowing engine use, the site is allowing players to have the computer engine make certain moves for them or indeed play an entire game for them, I can play fritz or any engine for the same effect, I wish to play against humans who play moves themselves rather than get an engine to make moves for them, how is that not cheating?
If you dont see that as cheating then I dont know what to say, I think this is a fair complaint and does not quite deserve being told "go away if you dont like it", I am simply suprised a site allows it thats all.
Scott Nichols (2009-01-13 03:58:19)
Different sites:
Dear Tom, There is a site called Playchess.com that only allows engine play in the engine room. All other areas are closly monitored and players who try to use engine assistance are seriously repremanded, (loss of ratings and on up). It is an excellent site.
This site allows engine use in correspondence chess. Alot of players love the system. And it seems also, that even when players have basically the same equipment, the better player usually wins anyway. As Thibault so eloquently put it, they look beyond the "horizon" of computers to make their decisions.
I play on both sites and follow both sites rules. Playchess=serious chess.
FICGS=fun and theoretical chess and more.
Normajean Yates (2009-01-16 05:49:31)
thanks thib & wayne - I thought so 2...
..except at standard time controls. At standard I thought top GMs would be better even now :(
IMO, two of the reasons why correspondence is still an exception:
1. engines still understand positional aspects in a clumsy way (mainly through eval function even now I think..)[a]
2. top engines are commercial - so they have to 'show off' to compete in the market - 'showing off time' at corrspondence is too long for the software market.. so top engines are tuned towards faster play...
[a] I wish that after copyright etc. expires, commercial chess engine vendors must be legally forced to make public their algorithms.
(Ideally, I wish - no copyright, only moral right of actual authors! - but that needs a diiferent economic system than capitalism)
Garvin Gray (2009-01-18 13:57:42)
to which do you belong
Either that, or that the readers are not sure exactly what you are talking about, to which I am in the second category.
On possibly a related issue, when I click on the links below, the site opens a new window and tells me I have to log in again, but when I log in again, it sends me back to the my messages page. So I can not get to the page you mention from the link.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-18 18:08:59)
Correction
"Game 232- The river is Ad and Player 1 has gone all in for 55 chips."
True, actually I was confusing myself, my original post was not correct : Player 1 (Volker) raised (he was all in) and player 2 (myself) called. I'm not even sure in this case : should player 2 show his cards if player 1 wins ?
Now there is the case #2, let's imagine player 1 raises after the river, then player 2 calls (and he's all in), should player 2 show his cards even if player 1 wins ?
Normajean Yates (2009-01-19 15:38:51)
to sophie [contd]..
Sophie wrote: 'the halloween gambit refused is a dull game.'
Programs cannot understand the concept 'dull' and 'interesting'.
(actually they *can* very roughly, but then they cannot distinguish efficiently between 'interesting' and 'unsound'. Something like: run the position on rybka3 'dynamic'; then cross-check the move with the main rybka3 )
They can understand 'drawish'.
Objectively of couse, either the initial pos is a win for white, or a win for black, or a draw. We simply do not know...
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-25 19:10:55)
20716 Kn/s
Interesting, Wayne ! 20716 Kn/s .. just dreaming :)
The names of the winners (computers) :
Intel QX9775 Yorkfield [8 x 4730], Intel E5450 Harpertown, Intel Dual XEON X5460, Intel Qx9650 OC, Intel Dual XEON X5365, Intel Xeon 5462, Apple Mac Pro, 2 x Quad Xeon x5365 [8 x 3000, 12810 Kn/s]
wow...
Francisco Gramajo (2009-01-29 03:42:30)
Poker insults Chess...
My friends:
Years ago I was addicted to poker, losing a lot of money on line, also in real casinos.
I was a chess player since 13, but dont like the openings, I was tired to play same thing... e1-aggg! same faces... and a lot of fake players on line.
I discover this place by mistake, I was so happy because keep my fix with chess in peace. Playing with decent players. Not only doing regular openings...
Then you install poker...
how come poker? again... I am playing in my local casinos again, and afraid to tell about his site, because I don't want a lot of people playing here making this place full of poker players.
The finest, the few, the chess... te best.
I suggest you Thib, separate ficgs from poker, and create a really server to play poker in a table with many players a time.
Play poker heads-up one to one, is bored, the winner is not always the best.
The future of ficgs is compromised with poker, but not for bad...
go ahead and crate... fipgs...
Best Regards!!!!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-29 12:33:51)
FICGS
Hi Francisco, these important points need to be discussed for sure.
1) As it has been said here on another point, I shouldn't try to protect players from themselves, but I've to protect players from other players (speaking of the quality of the games, general forfeits & so on - or the posts of Garvin & Josef in this thread). You can play poker all over the internet, it's up to you only. I'm not sure I should feel responsible of players addictions, the whole world (commercial issues) is about addictions that exist anyway. In my experience, I was not really addicted to poker as a gambling game, I never played it in casinos but I like competition and that's the way I introduced poker here, quite different from the casino games (by the way a few "pro" poker players here do not even understand it).
2) "Play poker heads-up one to one, is bored, the winner is not always the best", so chess, so Go... of course. I may be wrong on the poker games format (3 winning rounds / 100 chips), we'll see it in a few months as the rating list will evolve.
3) "Poker insults chess", I don't agree with this but I understand & respect this opinion (that could probably be "Poker insults" in some cases). Only 1 player cancelled his membership because of this at the moment. I'm sorry about this, I can't satisfy everyone when making updates but be sure I'm working for FICGS firstly as a chess place and thanks to poker (even with no money), we welcome more players & the prizes (for chess tournaments) will increase a lot in the next months. That's quite good for the site in my opinion. Anyway if I realize I'm wrong, no doubt I'll change it.
Anyway, that's an interesting & important discussion and I'll listen to all your points.
Normajean Yates (2009-01-29 14:59:36)
re: rybka era v open-source
I've not been keeping in touch with post-2002 developments in chess programming [that is, the literature - I have no energy to try to reverse-engineer closed code, and my skills in that are 15-years out-of-date and out of touch :(]
- Also, I think there are fewer and fewer of comparatively strong enough open-source engines now :(
Which is the strongest *open-souce* engine now, and how does it compare to even rybkas of the 3.1.x generation? I do not know [frankly, since 2002 I am too busy with literature and political activity; even though it looks like I am playing chess all the time ;)]
But I'd be interested in knowing and grateful to everyone who posts info this and related questions...
The questions are of the form of comparative strengths of stongest post-2005 open-source engines versus rybka; and *published* new ideas in chess programming which have been implemented and have been shown to improve engine strength.
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.
Don Groves (2009-02-01 10:44:54)
3/5 or ?
Thibault: Its true that longer games are better for ratings but the question is how much better? If a game lasts 100 hands, there is about a 10% chance that the game was decided by luck rather than skill (one player getting significantly better hole cards than the other). If a game lasts 300 hands, that chance drops to about 3%. If a game lasts 500 hands, it drops to about 1.8% So you can see there is a diminishing return in having long games to make the ratings better. It would take 10,000 hands before the chance of luck winning instead of skill dropped to 1%.
I have some games now that are over 300 hands and nowhere near finished. Also some of my games ended after only 100 or fewer moves so those games could easily have been decided by luck. It just isn't realistic to think that games lasting several hundred moves are the answer to good ratings. You can never account for a run of good luck winning a game in only a few hands.
It would be interesting to know the average length of the games completed so far using best 3/5. It could very well be that best 2/3 would give very reasonable ratings and more games will be played in the same length of time.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-01 15:14:58)
The fact is...
... ratings should be in accordance (as much as possible) with ELO rating system : if player A is rated 1800 and player B is rated 2000, player B should win about 3 games out of 4. So the question isn't first to make ratings "accurate" (by the number of games), but to be "significant" .. eg. in a 1 round games system (30 hands max.), all players would be rated from 1600 to 1700, this has absolutely no interest.
Don's statistics are interesting and actually (imo) justify 3/5, it is probably possible to estimate the best average number of hands [btw the no-limit is not the best way, but more fun] but in my experience 2/3 is not enough. The longest game reached 1000 moves already (maybe about 400 hands), some games lasted about 35 moves only (of course the chancy factor is bigger there), it is hard to "calculate" anything one thing is sure, the longer the games, the more significant are ratings... then of course, the more games, the more accurate are ratings.
Don Groves (2009-02-02 00:11:53)
Hardware vs. software in chess
It seems to me that what hardware advances do is allow software algorithms to run more efficiently, which then allows deeper analysis in the same amount of time compared to older hardware.
If we want to know the best chess software, we must play many engine vs. engine games on identical hardware. Presumably then, the winner will also be better on more advanced hardware.
Another thing to consider is that the hardware need not be a general purpose computer, but may be specifically designed to run a certain algorithm. In this case, the engine using that algorithm would have a large advantage in an engine vs. engine contest on that hardware.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-02 21:54:00)
Poker championship : New rules, deadline
Finally, a 2 stages single round-robin tournament (no ratings limit, everyone can play) seems a better choice for the poker holdem championship !
The deadline is now february 8, 2009... Join the fun !
Here are the new rules :
"FICGS world poker holdem championship is a 2 stages single round-robin tournament. All games are played in 30 days + 1 day / move.
Round-robin tournaments are groups of at least 7 players. The winner of each group is qualified for the next stage. In case of equality, the player with the strongest tournament entry rating (TER) is qualified for the next stage. If tournament entry ratings are equal, ratings when the next stage begins will be taken in account. Groups are built grading all players by rating and distributing them to obtain similar elo averages. Players may be invited to complete a group or to replace a forfeiting player.
Rules for poker holdem are official rules. You may find more information about the FICGS betting structure here. Both players must play until one resign or game is adjudicated. One game is played in 3 winning rounds of 100 chips by player played in no limit mode. The minimal bet is always 1 chip and does not depend on the blind's value. The small blind's value is doubled after the 50th hand, then after the 70th, 80th, 90th and 100th hand (the big blind then is 64 chips) of each round."
Normajean Yates (2009-02-11 18:44:46)
the revelation..
And the Prophet climbed up Mt Ararat; and God did say to him: Knoweth thou this; I AM NOT.
(from Gospel voted out during Nicean council; owing to mysterious assassination of 15 supporting delegates..)
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
Sebastian Boehme (2009-02-16 15:35:44)
Some other related proverb
Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
----> I think from Albert Einstein
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-17 17:23:43)
Poker : suggestions & improvements
A new thread to discuss possible improvements for Poker Holdem 'board', in example I've been asked to add the possibility to know the "rabbits (?!)", in another way the turn & the river even if a player folds after the flop, what do you think ?
Also, for those who prefer to know what is the next card just after having played, the "slow moves" option may be a good choice but it may be really too slow (do we really need to confirm a bet ?), your opinion is needed...
I'll probably add a button to open a new window displaying the previous move very soon.
Feel free if you have any other suggestion.
Normajean Yates (2009-02-18 22:56:37)
re Einstein's quote:
"Creativity is knowing how to hide your sources. ----> I think from Albert Einstein"
(Yes, it is attributed to Einstein; and I have not seen it atributed to anyone else)-
So, clearly, Einstein was cleverly using engines in no-engines games ;)
Robert Mueller (2009-02-21 06:30:07)
Norms and Titles
For obtaining a title (e.g. FEM) you need three FEM norms. Does winning a FIM norm automatically give you a FEM norm too? In other words: if I have two FEM norms and then get a FIM norm, do I get the FEM title?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)
Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !
A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7
You can follow the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS
correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you
won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do
you explain such a result?
Svante Carl -
Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I
was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor
that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was
that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a
face-to-face or online direct playing situation.
FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?
Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to
make the games as distinct as possible.
FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia
(with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already),
what do you think about the games format played at FICGS
(30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?
Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as
the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings.
My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules
with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which
should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan
rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last
play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS
has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving
negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only
important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3",
"Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour.
As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on
FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go.
I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will
switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and
correspondence games.
The championship format is quite nice. I like the title
holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like
to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game.
Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look
forward to playing players from all over the world.
FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go?
What is more addictive according to you?
Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit
stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think
that one is more addictive than the other.
FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?
Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per
week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect.
Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I
like to watch pro games there.
FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow
this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?
Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are
no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced
quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time
before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these
programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I
think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get
exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high
handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I
would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.
FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your
favourite one?
Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am
really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some
really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some
pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I
don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some
online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.
FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won
the 3rd wch tournament?
Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!
FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it
went from the beginning to the end, do you think that
time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result
(the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?
Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level
right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy
feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he
actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it
timed out, though.
I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the
lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice
framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit
hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely
settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group
while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top
side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I
was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some
extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.
In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually
regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out
very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to
settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though
the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted
Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight
left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some
centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness,
but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able
to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into
his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.
Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After
White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured
white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my
side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with
Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape.
I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to
invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of
connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded
to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper
left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.
In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a
strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from
C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy
this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are
weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I
thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he
attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my
shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10
with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important
to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at
the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This
was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point
fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he
played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in
Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very
difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my
inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with
the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might
have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should
have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai.
Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here.
These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really
interested what stronger players might say about these games.
FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !
Svante Carl - Thank you!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-03 20:39:59)
Show the cards & history
Hi Don, well I don't know which solution is best, waiting for more opinions on this...
Michael, the PGN does not include the cards, actually displaying the history would take much more processor time that I prefer to save. You may also 'mouse over' the last move just below the board and you'll see the last moves played in title.
Also I just added an option : "V" in the 'move_express' (fast interface - for poker only yet), that opens a new window with an improved viewer to navigate into the game more easily... Feedbacks are welcome ;)
Michael Sharland (2009-03-04 20:57:02)
Show the cards & history
I'll agree with Don that just showing the cards in place would be more intuitive and is what everybody is used to seeing.
As far as the viewer goes, I would say that it is a nice improvement but finding key hands is still very difficult when the history gets long. One should be able to more easily navigate through the history by hand rather than move. Also, it would be nice if the PGN did clearly demark where points are won so key hands can more easily be found.
Keep up the good work.
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 (2009-03-07 01:51:18)
Clock / Challenges
Well, the "My games" timer feature may exist without showing the clock also... About the challenges I'll add the option soon (it should have been done months ago, lack of time).
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 11:56:26)
(!)
I don't think it would be a good idea cause the page needs to reload to display the (!) .. Imagine you're typing a looooong post (reminds me 2 years ago :)), you're to send it then the page reload "It's your turn".. ;)
As for me, I have one window with the "My games" page, and another one if neeeded with the forum.
Michael Aigner (2009-03-13 16:58:32)
@ Marc
Hi Marc,
in general you are right when you say you can play unserious openings in serious games - of course.
The little problem there is, you can´t if you want to win.
From time to time I can´t hold back and try it myself. In most of this games I am very happy if I am able to "win" a half point in the end.
Have a nice day
Michael
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.
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 ?
Scott Nichols (2009-03-15 21:05:35)
Excellent solution.
IMO Thibault has come up with exactly the right solution. Maybe there should be a way for all players to withdraw under the same conditions. Sometimes things come up and people can't follow through with what they planned, if they can withdraw without penalty it might save a lot of under 10 move losses and the remaining players just receive a forfeit win. Just an idea.
Marc Lacrosse (2009-03-17 13:02:10)
Anand vs computer
Back in 1998 Anand was the first top player to lose a match (5-3) against a PC program (Rebel 10).
Rebel played on a PC equipped with an AMD K6 450 Mhz processor (something similar to present-day smartphones!)
The match consisted of four blitz games, two rapid ones and two slow games. It is noticeable that Anand still managed to win 1.5/2 the slow games part of the match. And if I remember correctly Anand's win in the final game was a brilliant one, one of the last convincing human wins against modern programs.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-17 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 :)
Marc Lacrosse (2009-03-18 10:48:07)
Yes but ...
Interesting idea but there could be a negative side effect : we could see an increase of the number of players leaving or silently withdrawing which is one of the most annoying aspects of correspondence chess IMHO.
Marc
Denis Ivanchenkov (2009-03-22 23:34:58)
notation
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff, would you be so kind to tell me what 4R means? 4 rooks captured? though it is possible I'd prefer if site engine would make reverse engineering of those 2 extra rooks to the original pawns and write in the following manner - 2R 2P -
well that's just my point of view
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.
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?)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-03-31 22:22:54)
Poker ratings
I've just changed the rating rules for Poker. I noticed that poker ratings moved really fast, most probably too fast. Also I think it is better to favour experience to new ratings, at least under a certain rating limit (just like Go rating rules). I'll keep an eye on ratings during a few months. Consequently now the poker rating rules are :
"The poker holdem rating list takes account of rated poker holdem games played at any time control.
If you have no poker rating, you have to play at least one rated poker holdem game to appear in the rating list. Poker holdem ratings are adjusted in real time after each result :
Performance = Opponent Current Rating + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200."
Don Groves (2009-03-31 22:39:35)
Poker ratings
The last time I checked the poker ratings list, I noticed a large number of players rated at 1800.
I thought the starting rating was 1600 except for players with a lot of previous experience. Have all these new players at 1800 asked for this higher rating?
This practice throws off the ratings for all of us who began at 1600 and have moved up by actually winning games on FICGS.
Nick Burrows (2009-03-31 23:46:20)
general improvements
I agree that seeing 'rabbit' cards is a waste of space & distracting.
I also would prefer to just see the cards as they are, rather than the winning hand. It's very simple to see who has the best hand.
Scrolling back through a game is way too time consuming, i would play back thru games if there there was a 'viewer' similair to the chess analysis board, but as it is now is just like a hard record of the game.
Otherwise, i am greatly enjoying my poker games and has improved my enjoyment of the site immensely :-)
Many thanks, Nick.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-11 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 20:04:06)
I still like the idea
I still like the idea of country teams and an Olympiad-like format. I've read Marc's post and can't imagine nationalism would be a problem on a friendly site like FICGS.
However, it would be a shame for countries which only have one or two players at FICGS not to be able to play. How about a team championship along the lines of other chess team championships such as the Russian one which has just finished? i.e. teams are made up of invited players from all over the world. Anyone could be a team captain and enter a team if they could get one together. There could be an entry fee and captains might even then pay a fee to top FICGS players to be on their team in an effort to win the FICGS team trophy and prize money. ;) I'm not saying an entry fee would be a good idea - just mentioning it as a possibility. Anyway, I think a team championship of some kind, Olympiad-format or not, or both, would be interesting, exciting, and good for building the sense of community on FICGS.
Scott Nichols (2009-04-14 21:16:33)
Must check box
IMO the only acceptable draw offer is checking the box. A lot of ambiguous offers might be misconstrued a real offers, i.e. "this looks like a draw don't you think", "Can't see a win for either side, probably a draw." ----So IMO anything other than checking the box is simply conversation, IMO. :)
William Taylor (2009-04-15 23:15:21)
Intermediate time control
Yes, perhaps the time limit for 1 move could be shortened. A week would be fine for poker games, I think, but (although I would almost always play a move in less than a week) I wouldn't favour the introduction of such a short time control in chess games.
Regarding Don's proposal that the game would not be rated if fewer than ten moves had been played, it is of course theoretically possible to have a large or winning advantage after ten moves, and in such a situation it would seem unfair not to rate the game. (That's assuming that the player who won on time was also the one winning on the board).
Nick Burrows (2009-04-15 23:32:05)
lines
It won't let me type the command without following it!
The instruction is at the top of this page to the right of 'Welcome to the forum & players blog.'
Don Groves (2009-04-17 09:37:49)
Draw offers
I don't see anything ambiguous about sending "Draw offered" or equivalent words to the opponent. It's the same thing as saying those words over the board. The intent is clear and unambiguous.
What is ambiguous to me is allowing a player to send those words to an opponent and then claim later that they were not intended to offer a draw.
William Taylor (2009-04-17 20:39:20)
Ambiguous draw offers
Don, 'Draw offered' or 'Would you like a draw?' might not be ambiguous, but how about any of the following:
'I guess it's just a draw after all.'
'Hmm, looks like I'll have to settle for a draw.'
'Well, looks like a draw then?'
'Draw'
'Any strangely-worded message that looks like it could be a draw offer but is written by somebody who doesn't speak very good English.'
While my initial reaction was that such cases should be adjudicated, I now see that it could be problematic.
Normajean Yates (2009-04-24 00:33:24)
me too: I just ignore the draw offer..
It has happened three times here in *one* game: an ongoing chess game of mine here on ficgs. :)
[The first time *I* offered the draw. Opponent moved, thereby automatically declining and cancelling the draw offer. The other two times *opponent* offered the draw and I moved.]
(btw I declined the offers not out of spite but because I have a win: all lines I tried give me a win. It is a most interesting game: since the annotations will not appear on the record; I'll just say that opponent returned my early exchange-sacrifice setting a trap: I could have reached Q and 3 pawns v Q, but opponent would then draw by perpetual! The [probable] winning line has Q and 2 pawns v Q and P, but my centralised Q and promotion threats win!)
It does look to me like a mountain is being made out of less than a molehill.. (not by me - I didn't start this.)
This post was to illustrate how there is *no* problem at all[1]; and neither me nor my opponent (both were playing their first games when the game began) saw any problem at all.
this is my last post on this topic.
[1] If there is at all a problem here, it is of the same level as the 'problem' that the following rule is not mentioned in ficgs-rules:
. 'gn is not allowed in chess unless n is an integer between 1 and 8 inclusive, where 1 and 8 are to interpreted as the standard numerals standing for integers in the ordered real-closed field R, with the *canonical* ordering. (As opposed to, say, an integer in the domain Z[2+i*sqrt(5)] or an integer in some exotic Grothendieck topos).
;)
Nick Burrows (2009-04-24 01:49:31)
International Competition
I disagree that international competition divides. Within the countries it unites.
The example of England v Argentina is different because of their recent political history, and because football in particular has a culture of 'yob' support. In England it was created from club football rivalry
Does the olympics divide? Or the Davis cup? Olympiad?
I believe they create something where otherwise there is nothing.
Every action is a positive action, even if it has a negative result.
By definition, playing for a team implies playing against. Your win is their loss, but you shake hands and say well done - remembering that it's 'just a game'! In the process, everyones level is raised, and something worthwhile is created. Just don't take it too seriously or symbolically!
Normajean Yates (2009-04-24 05:24:14)
re lennon/yko ono and chess...
Oh dear, quoting lennon's 'imagine' made me some sort a sitting duck but nobody's noticed it yet so I'll preempt that line of attack by pointing it out myself :)
I had forgotten, in the 'no more war' (that was the Vietnam war) sit-ins /bed-ins /exhibitions/ 'happenings' by Ono and Lennon, Yoko Ono had exhibited this sequence of chess sets where the two sides were indistinguishable --- or, more clearly, there was only one side - there was no 'Other'. [and only Yoko Ono 'playing']..
So, if I were to be consistent, I shouldn't be playing chess or any competitive game - against living beings at any rate - here or anywhere -:(
But, saved by something Thibault used to have on this site [I suppose it is still one of those quotes whose turn to be the 'featured quote' comes] - essentially, one is competing against oneself...
but woe! :(
If so, then once I have won a game [ie see the win clearly] why do I insist on actually completing the game, if I am 'only' competing against oneself?
I think I managed to score something which has the feel of an own goal ^^:-|
Don Groves (2009-04-27 22:41:14)
Normajean
I don't recall saying anything like "What are you smoking, Normajean?" and, had I done so, it would certainly have had a winking smiley attached to it. I have always shown nothing but respect for you in the forum and chat. There must be some misunderstanding here...
Nick Burrows (2009-04-29 20:11:23)
Past game search
To look at an opponents past games, i click on the magnifying glass>games>individual game.
Then to look at the next one i have to close the window and repeat the above process for each new game
Is there a faster way?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-29 21:12:36)
Player games search
You may use the right-click "open in a new window" for each game... or download the FICGS database (in Search games - by the way you may use Search games by specifying the name of your opponent) then view the games in Chessbase or.. or.. :)
Wolfgang Utesch (2009-04-30 11:38:24)
Xavier Pichelin is old and new WC
Congratulations for the his win - he was better than me!
I'd like to have a longer outside from chess.
My interestings are actually more in endurance sports like cycling.
All the best for the future,
Wolfgang
Thibault de Vassal (2009-04-30 12:16:34)
Xavier Pichelin wins the 2nd FICGS WCH
First of all, congratulations Xavier !
That's a real performance to beat Wolfgang in a match (whatever the score..).
These games will have to be analyzed, Xavier has good positions but the FICGS withdrawals rule 11.6 may apply in a few games (otherwise basically Xavier's future rating is 2682 !!).
Any opinion on each game is welcome.
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. ;-)
Marc Lacrosse (2009-05-02 11:36:33)
To Wayne
Winning because of opponent withdrawal does not deserve any congratulation ...
It is a real pity.
Moreover in my case the most probable outcome would have been a (close) victory for my opponent.
Marc
Ranganathan Raman (2009-05-06 00:03:04)
rating how will cal?
win how many point rating?
loss how many point rating?
i resign how manypoint rating?
William Taylor (2009-05-06 11:20:14)
Scoring
My slight preference would be for a more normal system such as 2 points for a team win, and 1 for a draw, with board points only being used for tiebreaks. (I think this could potentially lead to more 'team tactics' - for example, if you saw that one member of your team had an easy win and the other two games were likely to be drawn, you might opt for a safe line rather than going for wild complications - and if one game was going to be lost, you might head for the wild complications in an effort to win.)
Daniel Parmet (2009-05-07 00:18:40)
team average 2552?
wow I guess we already know what team is going to win...
Sophie Leclerc (2009-05-07 02:40:52)
team
I can join, I'll mail my friend and if possible, we should add him to our, Yugi_inving, he only a low rating because of me.
Yugi Inving will be a good addition..
Don,t worry, the thibeault team will not win too much game. If only Yugi could work for us and stop working on his engine. (It should be finished.)
And for the name, What about The_phantoms ?
William Taylor (2009-05-07 14:42:13)
Thibault's team
Don't be too sure of winning...The Dark Knights are ready to take on all comers! ;)
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.
Daniel Parmet (2009-05-12 02:04:56)
Queen trap
yes I must say these are quite common in bigchess. I trapped my opponents queen in 2 games and I think if I recall I used the threat of trapping in one game to win massive material.
Normajean Yates (2009-05-12 07:21:02)
to Daniel: and to Thib and programmers
The queen-traps - of the patzer kind as in my game at any rate - will become less common once we have more middle-level players, I think.
Also, [to thib and non-retired programmers] in bigchess game records, it would help to indicate the piece moved [tiny array in the code so that the piece display is in the language one wants, or in figurine notation], to indicate captures by 'x' and the captured piece, and to indicate promotion.
This is trivial [to write a converter from present notation to this more human-freindly one, given a game from the starting position -- 10 years ago I would have written and uploaded it (C/Haskell source code, command-line window) in 3 hours - but now I feel sooo lazy to write a single line of code - my programming brain-cells are dead or in a coma :)
Alexander Blinchevsky (2009-05-13 22:14:18)
I need a team too
Alexander Blinchevsky 2063 and growing ;)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-17 03:09:39)
Don : point of etymology revisited!
Don Groves posted and I agreed:'"The Arabic suffix "uddin" or "idin" means "of the faith." Hence a mujahidin is a "warrior of the faith," or a holy warrior.'
Still havent gotten down to learning to use the oxford arabic-english dictionary, but:
Don, I'm afraid your derivation won't do - you might still be right, but not for the reason you gave.
You see, mujahideen is just the plural of 'mujahid', 'mujahid' = one who does 'jihad' [arabic and hebrew are both semitic languages: people who use the term 'anti-semite' often forget this (because of the nonscientific 'ham' and 'sam' myths thrown in - so like hebrew, arabic has this - root in the middle, and modification affects the root and possibly adds prefix and suffix.. i remember reading this in chomsky - linguistic paper not political)
Khatoon (= lady; no religious overtone here); plural Khwateen = ladies
Talib (=student); plural Taliban
Mujahid (='jihad'-doer); plural Mujahideen
So we are back to the question:
Etymologically speaking, does 'jihad' just mean war, or does it mean holy war? (the current meaning is a different question..)
On this point: until 2001 no one including me would see any problem in saying - such-and-such is a lone crusader for human rights (or for animal rights, or for the separation of church and state, or for whatever cause) -
Bush-Cheney-Blair&co since ensured that the word 'crusade' became an avoidable word again..
Imagine reading the following sentence in 1999, and in 2009:
"Richard Dawkins has launched a *crusade* against all religions in general, and against christianity in paricular." ;)
Don Groves (2009-05-18 06:48:35)
Friedrich Schiller
"Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain." Very good, Rodolfo.
It is said that two powerful forces battle for the fate of the world: (1) software writers who try to write idiot-proof software; and (2) the Universe, which keeps producing idiots.
So far, the Universe is winning.
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.
William Taylor (2009-05-20 19:58:59)
Only 1
Just the winner goes forward. You can see the rules here (scroll down a bit): http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
Normajean Yates (2009-05-21 02:36:57)
to summarise: interesting!
I read the ficgs chess WCH rules: interesting!
In short,
stages 1a-3a: the top-8 rated players play a (3-stage obviously!) *knockout* (each match consisting of 8 games; so that is 56 top-rated games!)
stages 1b-3b. In parallel, the rest of the contenders play a 3-stage round-robin (groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players.) - as William Taylor posted, only the *winner* of each round-robin stage goes to the next stage - (or if rated above 2300, directly from stage 1 to stage 3 -
see rules for detatils)
stage 4: the knockout winner plays the round-robin in an 8-match candidate-finals; to decide who the challenger will be.
stage 5: the challenger v the current WCh -12 game match.
for pairing and tie-break rules (and all the above), just follow the link above [William Taylor's post]; search the page for "FICGS CHESS WORLD CHAMPIONSHIP :": it will probably be faster than scrolling down ;)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-22 05:19:29)
Curioser and curiouser! How..?
I don't see how the following happened, given my reading of the rules: William Taylor, you are probably the best person to explain where I am getting the rules wrong!
William Taylor in:
FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_02__000005:
points: 6/8. *not* the leader: Domenico Riccio was the sole leader with 7.5/8, second was Norman Wilson (6.5/8) -
William Taylor, you were third in your stage-1 group so how did you get to reach stage 2?
(FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_04__000004 William Taylor and four others tied for 2nd place out of 7)
Well I suppose the stage-1 group-2 top two players withdrew, right? (I *could* check it myself, but the tedium/learning ratio would be too high ;)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-22 06:52:31)
comment on Thibault's quote..
Well not exactly a comment, but the following quote reminded me of a Woody Allen quote:
"War is the child of passion, passion is the child of narcissism and narcissism is the child. (...) Another game ? (Thibault de Vassal)" [ellipsis in the original]
"I used to be of the Hebrew persuasion, but lately I've converted to narcissism." - Woody Allen's persona in the film 'Scoop'.
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.
Vadim Khachaturov (2009-05-22 11:13:20)
WC reglament
William, there is the fourth and the most real reason of all this. The number of groups for the second stage changes unexpectedly from WC to WC (3-5). Its clear, that the number of winning place in first stage group will change too.It brings to some paradoxal situations. E.g. my proceeding to the second stage after sharing 3-5th places in WC 3, and not proceeding after sharing 1-2nd in WC 5.The worst thing is that one cannot know how many groups of stage 2 will be before WC starts.
Normajean Yates (2009-05-23 07:50:33)
wikichess: extra goodies! but why ..
If you access wikichess *without* logging in; you will see the following extra goodies:
1. '... or enter a line' [below which is a form to enter an opening line for search]
2. 'Or find an opening in the chess openings directory.' [link to chess openings directory]
3.'Openings most analyzed :' [at present:] Traxler counter-attack, Latvian gambit, Kingston defense [all hypertext links]
These goodies are excellent! But Thib. has forgotten to make them available if you are logged-in. Thib, please rectify! (Or is there a reason why you have to be logged-out to access these? I can't think of any...)
Normajean Yates (2009-05-27 05:02:24)
Thank you Thib: and I am so relieved!
First, about the 'thank you' to Thib.: that is for responding :) Now, to business:
>Thib said: Speaking of the server, I'm not afraid of crisis or whatever, the statistics are just better and better now..
I am so relieved! Seriously.
>Thib. said: FICGS grew very slowly during 2 or 3 years but IMO it was based on realistic views..
Exactly! That was one of the first things I noticed when I discovered this site (early June last year, I think) - I phoned my partner [she and I were in different countries on that day; coincidentally, this month also..] - told her this site *will* survive, and chess.com will *not* survive [too much money wasted by Eric of chess.com even then] - [It was only in in May last year that I had noticed chess.com in its present incarnation (earlier it did *not* offer chess-*playing*, it was a chess-reference-material site only)
(My partner doesn't play chess but of course one doesn't have to be a chess-player to be interested in issues like this!)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(beginning of digression about chess.com (as a contrasting example):)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
well chess.com has *technically speaking* survived; but there is a graded level of paying members [silver-gold-diamond-platinum-what not] - each year paying membership has to be renewed [I am a free member there; I don't play games there now except on special request :) ] -- and..
Guess what, chess.com in a few months intoduced a system that gave a *playing advantage* to paying members: the more expensive grade you are in, the greater the paying advantage. So, as far as correspondence chess is concerned, can chess.com be now considered a chess site?
(In fact I posted a thread there last year suggesting that they should introduce auction: at any time any of the opponents in a game can bid to win a game. [even if they have lone K against K+Q+Q+R :}] - then if opponent doesn't make a bigger bid then the bidder wins the game. Minimum bid 20,00 :) (chess.com is a US site ;) )There was some heated discussion over it.. Eric (the site owner - he is a decent chap, all said and done) prudently stayed away from that discussion :)
I posted in various threads there also directly saying that chess.com is probably the only *chess* site where the more you pay, the greater advantage you have in a *game*. Is that chess?
None of the above is defamatory: it is obviously true for anyone to check - and clearly Erik silently agrees - well good luck to him...
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(end of digression about chess.com)
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Thib. said: so don't worry, the site will survive after both of us, I'll take care of that :)
:)
I am sure now that you will :) (but not because both of us will suddenly die tomorrow, I hope ;))
Thibault de Vassal (2009-05-27 23:17:28)
FICGS & chess.com
The example of chess.com is very interesting, I looked at this site (from time to time) growing very fastly, most probably because of investments for good SEO (search engines optimisation) - to start with the domain name - but it still looks like a MFA (Made For Adsense) website even if I'm sure that Eric made good work to offer plenty of services related to chess. Well, I did not check it for a while...
Speaking of auction at chess.com, that's a funny idea and I just wonder why I did not think about a system where you can bet some epoints at any time in any game... maybe I'll think about that, but that's not really important (the very large majority of players do not play for money but for the love of games only).
Normajean Yates (2009-05-28 03:40:31)
Thib, my auction suggestion was sarcasm!
Thib. please read it again (the part where I suggested auction at chess.com - or you can loook at my thread on this there - it is called 'the best chess money can buy' ;)
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/community/the-best-chess-money-can-buy
(I am not sure whether the link works for members only or for everyone; anyway free membership is a 5-minute process..)
That was sarcasm! I meant this: suppose you are left with K+Q v K. Sure win for you, no? At least you can't lose, even on time (insuff. material) ? Now my sarcastic suggestion was that: opponent bids 20 for the game, now if you cannot bid higher then opponent *wins* the game automatically!
Of course I thought until yesterday that no chess site will offer *that* kind of auction! but you said:
>Speaking of auction at chess.com, that's a funny idea and I just wonder why I did not think about a system where you can bet some epoints at any time in any game...
Surely *you* don't want *that* kind of auction here, do you? ;)
Scott Nichols (2009-06-03 03:09:30)
Chess is dead? Not hardly.
In his book "The world of chess" by Anthony Saidy the following paragraph appears. "Later in his (Capablanca) career, his play became ever more technical and drawish. He expressed the idea that with the perfection of modern knowledge it would soon be impossible to win a game against a master. Chess would soon reach a "draw death". He even proposed interchanging the initial positions of the Bishops and Knights to inject new life into the game."
An exact quote found earlier in this same book exemplifies more of what this thread is about---In reply to a Steinitz comment Tchigorin replied "Chess is a limitless forum for the human imagination. Each position is a fresh challenge. Rules and book openings, to the creative player, are no more than guidelines to be transcended. Individualize. Each position is new--terra incognita that may contain the seed of a beautiful combination. Gladly give up a pawn in return for the attack. Play chess with joy."
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-03 17:15:24)
At most...
I agree tambien, of course. At most, some positions are "dead", really easy to understand perfectly.
True, it is not so easy to throw some fire on the board in real games at a high level, so in correspondence chess games, but every good player know he has to (if he wants some chances to win at least), so this is the main part of the game nowadays, and when there's fire on board the complexity of the position may be sometimes far away from human and/or chess engines understanding. The problem is that human nature make us reproduce known positions much more than unknown ones, unlike chess engines, that's why computer games are not so often draws and may be really funny to watch !
Benjamin Block (2009-06-03 18:10:25)
Chess will die in corr first.
Chess is still possible to win in corr even if it is more harder. But computer is still bad. In a some possitions computers think that white is better even if black is on win.
Nick Burrows (2009-06-04 00:55:20)
netiqeutte
In my game i have a small advantage in a position that is drawish, but still with some chance to win. The onus is on me to offer a draw. I believe my opponent understands the etiquette but is simply disregarding it - perhaps because he thinks it is a draw.
I'm not sure if having a rule pointing players towards the correct etiquette would ever stop somebody from doing it.
From my perspective i feel frustrated each time a draw is offered, and it just makes me more determined to win!
Wayne Lowrance (2009-06-04 01:44:44)
Draw offers
Tribault I do not know how it is addressed in other sites. But clearly you need to be careful where you tread here. Repeated draw offers seems on the surface rude. I have not seen the game, but according to Nick Burrows he feels he has winning chances and hence has refused the draw offers. That is clearly his right. If this evaluation is accurate the the repeated offers are in very bad taste.
I do not know if you have a review structure here for handling complaints. Having said this it is best if this site just runs on its own without intervention. Maybe extreme abuse should be reviewed. I dunno
Wayne
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 :)
Normajean Yates (2009-06-05 03:12:28)
Hannes, those are *general* rules..
There are exceptions! For example, (Q + a-P + b-P) v (Q + P) is a dead draw, right? So how come I have an easy win in:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=21702
?
If you are not convinced, put in the relevant 6-piece tablebases and see :D
Garvin Gray (2009-06-13 13:44:58)
answer
Normajean, Go to:
1) Your preference page
2) Click on the magnifying glass, new window opens
3) Click on Next page: History
4) Page changes to show your rating changes over time, including the new rating graph.
Normajean Yates (2009-06-13 18:23:08)
Thanks Thib.! both way are useful..
Thib's way - it has the advantage that I have bookmarked http://www.ficgs.com/players/yates_normajean/history.html
so that it can be reached in one click. And then i can just edit player name in the url window to reach history page of any player!
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.
Ranganathan Raman (2009-06-25 01:29:27)
play more leran
The Interactive Way To Go' (http://playgo.to/interactive/)?
but real time play bit hard work to win new players
Mladen Jankovic (2009-07-03 17:38:32)
Shatranj
I played it once, and got beaten by following the instincts from regular chess.
Strange and slow game. It's much more a simulator of a battlefield than a game.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-13 17:03:23)
Rules (reminder)
If a team scores 4-0 or 3-1 against another team, it is 2 points for the winning team and 0 for the other one, 1 point for each team if the score is 2-2.
So we still have to wait to see significant results. I'll publish clear results here as soon as possible.
Sophie Leclerc (2009-07-20 01:49:48)
very bad day
I am having a very bad day.
I resign games whitout knowing, accident and play horribly whitout knowing what I play.... I am thinking about something else.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-07-28 20:06:56)
Another way to reach statistics
A new way...
4) Just click your name at the top of the window !
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 ? :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-11 11:56:16)
Poker engine
[William] Yes, I think I've read also an article on a computer beating a pro player in heads up. Maybe the chancy factor ?
[Benjamin] I think it is possible, maybe easy, to code an engine to play here, but maybe it's not so easy to code a good engine able to play well in a 3 winning rounds match. Dunno...
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-11 20:08:24)
Quotes!
The following 11 quotes are all by me:
1- "Experiences are the keys to life."
2- "Happy endings are just stories that haven't finished yet."
3- "If you expect nothing then the following will happen: either 1) you will receive nothing and thus can be happy your expectations were met or 2) You will receive something and thus be happy you have received something. And.... Happiness ensues..."
4- "Step up and face your fear or you will never be what you should be."
5- "A mistake is only a mistake if you let it happen twice. Otherwise it is a learning experience. your experience."
6- "Life is painting a picture over many years with different paints and tools."
7- ""Horney concluded that love was at least a temporary escape from all her anxiety and insecurity" - Karen Horney
Does anyone else think that someoe named 'Horney' shouldn't be talking about love?"
8- "Take each event in a singularity and say if time passes will any of this matter?"
9- "Plans are ideas that never come to fruition."
10- "You should only get upset about the little things cause you have no control over the big things."
11- "Causing another problem without fixing the initial problem just makes the initial problem worse as time continues"
The following are classic quotes:
11- "If you lose the game you should win the analysis!"
12- "Every passing minute is a chance to turn it all around." - Vanilla Sky
13- "Life is pain my dear and anyone who says otherwise is selling something." - Princess Bride
14- "The 7ps: Prior Proper Planning Prevents Piss Poor Performance" - U.S. Military
15- "Water water everywhere but not a drop to drink!" - Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner
16- "You can get in way more trouble with a good idea than a bad idea cause you forget the good idea has limits" - Warren Buffet
17- "Teach a child to be polite and courteous and, when he grows up, he'll never be able to merge his car onto the freeway."
18- "Experience is the thing you have left when everything else is gone."
19- "There is no tomorrow without the pains and pleasures of today" - Gabriel
20- "If life weren't this complicated, it would be nowhere near as fun. Why? WHY NOT!" - Catch-22
21- "When you've done things right people won't know you've done anything at all." - Futurama
22- "The right perception of any matter and a misunderstanding of the same matter do not wholly exclude each other." - Kafka's the trial
23- "the Trausi follow the normal practices of Thracians in general, except in one particular- their behaviour, namely, on the occasion of a birth or a death. When a baby is born the family sits round and mourns at the thought of the sufferings the infant must endure now that it has entered the world, and goes through the whole catalogue of human sorrows; but when somebody dies, they bury him with merriment and rejoicing, and point out how happy he now is and how many miseries he has at last escaped." -Herodotus Viv
24- "When a Persian herald demanded the surrender of arms, the king shouted back 'come here to get them'; and when he had seen that he was surrounded, he commanded his men to have a good breakfast since their dinner would be served in hell." - Herodotus
25- "I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it"
26- "Why, we don't even know what living means now, what it is, and what it is called? Leave us alone without books and we shall be lost and in confusion at once. We shall not know what to join on to, what to cling to, what to love and what to hate, what to respect and what to despise." - Fyodor Dostoyevsky Notes from the Underground
27- "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes. Art is knowing which ones to keep." - Scott Adams
28- "Nobody is always a winner and anyone who says otherwise either is a liar or doesn't play poker."
29- The darkness immutable tranquility holds sway. - Junichiro Tanizaki
30- People who are constantly asking 'why' are like tourists who stand in front of a building reading Baedeker and are so busy reading the history of its construction, etc., that they are prevented from seeing the building. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
31- Either move or be moved. - Ezra Pound
32- "The real meditation is the meditation of one's identity..... You try finding out why you're you and not somebody else. And who in the blazes are you anyhow??" - Ezra Pound.
33- The image is more than an idea. It is a vortex or cluster of fused ideas and is endowed with energy. - Ezra Pound
34- The thought working its way towards the light. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
35- There are always two people in every picture: the photographer and the viewer. - Ansel Adams
36- When words become unclear, I shall focus with photographs. When images become inadequate, I shall be content with silence. - Ansel Adams
37- "Wanting to think is one thing; having a talent for thinking is another." - Ludwig Wittgenstein
38- Philosophers use a language that is already deformed as though by shoes that are too tight - Ludwig Wittgenstein
39- Nothing is more important for teaching us to understand the concepts we have than constructing fictitious ones - Ludwig Wittgenstein
40- dont for heavens sake, be afraid of talking nonsense! But you must pay attention to your nonsense - Ludwig Wittgenstein
41- In a conversation: One person throws a ball; the other does not know: whether he is supposed to throw it back, or throw it to a third person, or leave it on the ground, or pick it up and put it in his pocket, etc - Ludwig Wittgenstein
42- I really do think with my pen, because my head often knows nothing about what my hand is writing - Ludwig Wittgenstein
43- What I am writing here may be feeble stuff; well, then I am just not capable of bringing the big, important thing to light. But hidden in these feeble remarks are great prospects. - Ludwig Wittgenstein
44- I ask countless irrelevant questions. If only I can succeed in hacking my way through this forest! - Ludwig Wittgenstein
45- Even to have expressed a false thought boldly and clearly is already to have gained a great deal - Ludwig Wittgenstein
46- Dont concern yourself with what, presumably no one but you grasps! - Ludwig Wittgenstein
47- when you are philosophizing you have to descend into primeval chaos and feel at home there - Ludwig Wittgenstein
48- "You cannot step into the same river twice." - Heraclitus
49- "Eternity is a child playing, playing checkers; the kingdom belongs to a child." - Heraclitus
50- "Nothing endures but change." - Heraclitus
51- "For a guest remembers all his days the hospitable man who showed him kindness." - Odyssey Book 15 Line 75
52- "Watching [GM Nigel] Short peruse the photos of young women, I had a fanciful notion that the development of specialized skills and character traits in early childhood is like a country fair in which you are alotted a fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fixed number of tickets to spend on the various concessions. This particular fair is of short duration and happens only once in a lifetime. Nigel took the chess roller-coaster a dozen times, and rode the honesty ride twice, and so he had insufficient tickets left to take the Train Beyond Adolescence more than a stop or two. I myself missed the athletic concession, and I should have ridden -damn it- the chess coaster three or four times." - King's Gambit: A Son, A Father, and the World's Most Dangerous Game by Paul Hoffman page335
53- I dont know, but I do know with great precision why nobody else knows either. - John H. Cochrane
54- "One must have chaos within oneself, to give birth to a dancing star." - Friedrich Nietsche
55- "I created chaos on the chess board and my strength lay in finding hidden harmonies. I always cultivated being at peace in chaos. manifest your unique character on the chess board." - Josh Waitzkin
56- "Leave numbers behind and ride the wave of the game." - Josh Waitzkin
57- "The weakness of an artist is dogma." - Josh Waitzkin
58- "Everything i've learned, i've eventually unlearned. I spend more time unlearning than learning. You must challenge your own micro thought constructs." - Josh Waitzkin
59- "It is like a tunnel, the deeper you get into the more you see there is to learn." - Josh Waitzkin
60- "Your emotions are there for a reason. Observe their ripple." - Josh Waitzkin
61- "The same mold, teachers have learned a certain way. great teachers should listen first." - Josh Waitzkin
62- "Change from psychology and technical errors, transition from opening prep to first middlegame decision or tactical to strategical." - Josh Waitzkin
63- "There is some part about any discipline that should appeal to any person." - Josh Waitzkin
64- "Identify thematic connections by breaking down the walls between different disciplines." - Josh Waitzkin
65- "You know your country is dying when you have to make a distinction between what is moral and ethical, and what is legal." - John de Armond
66- "In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
67- "When you stop learning you start dying." - Scott Adams
68- "If you could buy some people for what they are worth, and sell them for what they "think" they are worth, there would always be a profit margin."
69- "Don't compare your life to others. You have no idea what their journey is all about."
70- "Life is too short to waste time hating anyone."
71- "When in doubt, just take the next small step."
72- "When it comes to going after what you love in life, don't take no for an answer."
73- "Frame every so-called disaster with these words 'In five years, will this matter?" - Ellis
74- "If we all threw our problems in a pile and saw everyone else's, we'd grab ours back."
75- "Envy is a waste of time. You already have all you need."
76- "There are three sides to every story: your side, their side and the truth." - Bablyon 5
77- "Better than a thousand days of diligent study is one day with a great teacher." - Japanese Proverb
My apologies if some of the classics are in the ficgs quote file already as I just keep my own (and pull quotes from everywhere). I tried to cull out the duplicates.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2009-08-23 13:51:45)
Slow moves
Hello Thibault!
Please don't remove the "slow moves" for poker games.
I don't like the "fast moves" because it doesn't show the situation after I have sent my move (hands and new community cards).
I don't need the chat windows but I don't like to be disconnected if I write a message to an opponent (I do that in poker games too)
Best, Heinz-Georg
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-25 07:00:59)
unsure which 'chat' window
confused, by chat window you mean leaving notes for myself about the game or sending a message to the opponent?
Michel van der Kemp (2009-08-25 19:47:10)
Mistake in ELO calculation?
I got this email from an advanced match.
Game 27857
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__BULLET_BRONZE__000132"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2009.8.23"]
[Round "1"]
[White "van der Kemp,Michel"]
[Black "Gorek,Gregor"]
[Result "1-0"]
[WhiteElo "1966"]
[BlackElo "1623"]
1.e4 g6 2.d4 Bg7 3.Nc3 d6 4.Nf3 Nf6 5.Be2 O-O 6.O-O c6 7.a4 a5 8.h3 Na6 9.Be3 Nb4 10.Qd2 Qc7 11.Rac1 Rd8 12.Rfe1 d5 13.exd5 Nbxd5 14.Nxd5 Nxd5 15.Bh6 Be6 16.Bxg7 Kxg7 17.c4 Nb4 18.Bd3 Nxd3 19.Qxd3 Qd6 20.Re3 Rd7 21.Qe2 Re8 22.Rd1 R7d8 23.Re1 Rd7 24.b3 b6 25.Ng5 Bf5 26.g4 1-0
Move sent : 2009.8.23 - 17:54:11
Move replied : 2009.8.23 - 19:10:44
Player resigned.
WhiteELO : 1966 ... 1961
BlackELO : 1623 ... 1627
This email was generated automatically by http://www.ficgs.com/
My rating went down after winning a game :)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-25 23:55:39)
Chat window
Daniel, by "chat window" we mean the bar on the right where we can send short messages.
Daniel Parmet (2009-08-26 05:51:01)
another rating problem.
I don't think my most recent win is being calculated in my future rating ? It says it only has 2 games for the future rating when it should have 3.
Garvin Gray (2009-08-26 17:07:38)
do better next time :)
wow, it really is a tough place round here. You even lose points for winning a game.
Michel, I think what Thibault is telling from your rating 'dip' is that the server was not impressed by your win and expects a lot better from you next time lol :P
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-26 19:21:42)
Stan Vaughan vs. Varuzhan Akobian (WCF)
Many of you probably saw this strange banner in a Chessbase news article, with this title :
"THE WORLD CHESS CHAMPIONSHIP"
World Chess Federation, Inc.
WCF "WORLD CHESS CHAMPION" Stan Vaughan
vs. WCF official challenger Varuzhan Akobian in WCF TITLE MATCH 2009 (starting on December 1st, 2009 at Riviera Hotel Casino, Las Vegas)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5717
The Chessbase article says that when FIDE stripped Fischer of the title in 1975, he set up the WCF which sanctioned his "World Championship" rematch with Spassky in 1992 (with a record of five million dollars prize). After winning the event, Fischer was scheduled to play WCF official challenger Stan Vaughan, but he retired.
Well well... I cannot even find a page on Wikipedia on Stan Vaughan, but the article on Chessbase also mentions that Vaughan would have been 29 time US Champion of the American Chess Association, retaining the title at 2008 Robert Fischer Memorial and also, but not least :
* 1988 US Correspondence Chess Champion
* 1989, 1995 Mensa World Correspondence Chess Champion
* 1995-2007 WCCF World Correspondence Chess Champion
* WCF The World Chess Champion 2001-present 2009
* Retained the title in 2007 with an 11-0 title match victory over Francisco Metz, an International Master from Mexico and former 1975 USCF's US Amateur Chess Champion
To finish, Garry Kasparov would have turned down the opportunity to play him in a match for 5 million dollars in 2008 - not a big surprise.
Does anyone have more information on all this and eventually games played by this un-unknown correspondence chess champion ?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-27 01:58:03)
Parmet - Porkolab
The result has been recorded but here is the explanation : "The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is superior to 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player."
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-28 01:06:17)
S.C. von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion !
Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion, for the 3rd time... after winning 2 more games in the 5 games final match which looked like in some ways to the previous one with Ke Lu.
Congrats again Svante Carl ! Definitely we need more strong players to try to rivalize :)
Here is the 4th game that just finished :
(
;
FF[1]
GM[1]
SZ[19]
AP[Ficgs]
RU[Chinese]
GN[von Erichsen,Svante Carl-Lu,Ke]
HA[0]
KM[7.5]
WR[2653]
PW[von Erichsen,Svante Carl]
BR[2483]
PB[Lu,Ke]
DT[February 28 3:6:11 CET 2009]
RE[W+T]
;
B[pd]
;
W[dc]
;
B[pp]
;
W[eq]
;
B[pj]
;
W[nq]
;
B[lq]
;
W[no]
;
B[pn]
;
W[kp]
;
B[lp]
;
W[lo]
;
B[kq]
;
W[jp]
;
B[jq]
;
W[ip]
;
B[hq]
;
W[hp]
;
B[gq]
;
W[gp]
;
B[fq]
;
W[fp]
;
B[er]
;
W[dr]
;
B[dq]
;
W[ep]
;
B[fr]
;
W[cq]
;
B[cj]
;
W[ch]
;
B[co]
;
W[cn]
;
B[bn]
;
W[dn]
;
B[cm]
;
W[nc]
;
B[kd]
;
W[ne]
;
B[pf]
;
W[ng]
;
B[gc]
;
W[ic]
;
B[id]
;
W[jd]
;
B[jc]
;
W[je]
;
B[ib]
;
W[kc]
;
B[hc]
;
W[de]
;
B[lc]
;
W[ph]
;
B[oh]
;
W[qe]
;
B[pe]
;
W[pg]
;
B[og]
;
W[of]
;
B[pi]
;
W[qf]
;
B[rh]
;
W[qd]
;
B[pc]
;
W[qc]
;
B[qg]
;
W[pb]
;
B[ob]
;
W[qb]
;
B[nb]
;
W[nh]
;
B[qh]
;
W[pl]
;
B[om]
;
W[qo]
;
B[po]
;
W[qp]
;
B[qn]
;
W[pq]
;
B[oq]
;
W[pr]
;
B[or]
;
W[rq]
;
B[mj]
;
W[mc]
;
B[kb]
;
W[lf]
;
B[lh]
;
W[jg]
;
B[ji]
;
W[mb]
;
B[oc]
;
W[ie]
;
B[he]
;
W[hf]
;
B[gf]
;
W[hg]
;
B[mf]
;
W[me]
;
B[mg]
;
W[ke]
;
B[ld]
;
W[le]
;
B[nf]
;
W[eh]
;
B[hi]
;
W[kh]
;
B[ki]
;
W[rn]
;
B[rm]
;
W[ro]
;
B[ql]
;
W[bk]
;
B[bj]
;
W[cl]
;
B[dm]
;
W[bm]
;
B[bo]
;
W[dl]
;
B[dp]
;
W[br]
;
B[em]
;
W[en]
)
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2009-08-28 09:44:30)
Thanks
Thank you very much.
I must admit, though, that I am a bit disappointed that all these games were decided by the clock. Game 1, I am definitely behind, Game 2, I think that I have a winning position, Game 3 is very close and would have been decided by endgame (there are some very large points open), Game 4, I am back in the game after installing a group in his moyo, but I believe he is still slightly ahead, Game 5, I think that he has to defend the group at the bottom now, so I can reduce the left side, then switch to the top right corner; I am still relatively thin at the top (compared to the rest of the board), so I think the game would have had to be decided in a fight there.
So, all in all, I think that these were really interesting games, and it is a pity that they were finished too early. Lu Ke is a very strong player, and I am really lucky to have a positive score against him. I just hope that my next opponent pays a bit more attention to the clock.
Don Groves (2009-08-31 00:58:08)
My .02 Euros
As I understand it, the current limit for a game to affect ratings is 350 ELO points. If so, then why would any player near the top of a 400 rating band enter a tournament unless at least one other player near his/her rating has already entered? Otherwise, that player stands to gain little or nothing from winning.
It seems logical to me that the rating band be smaller than the rating limit to insure that all the games will be rated.
Don Groves (2009-09-01 00:53:16)
No bug?
According to the showdown rules I've seen on the Internet, if no one takes aggressive action (bet or raise) on the round of betting preceding the showdown, then the showing of hands begins to the left of the dealer, no matter who has the better hand.
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 (2009-09-05 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.
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". :)
Don Groves (2009-09-17 03:41:11)
rating bands
If you are 1962 and you win a game against an opponent rated 1800, you will still gain rating points. It's entirely possible to reach 2000 by winning enough such games. that was the whole point of narrowing the bands, so that every game will count in the ratings.
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.
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.
Wayne Lowrance (2009-09-23 02:50:06)
after review
After further consideration and reviewing the responses, I change my vote to #3. After OTB touch-move !no take backs. 2 is the polite thing to do and that influenced me. But there are other considerations. Thibault, keep it simple, no take backs. I have miss moved here but accepted it as the rule !
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-23 11:19:51)
Big debate
The debate is growing and things are just getting more fuzzy :)
I do not really agree on the comparison with OTB chess, accidents may happen also (less often) eg. when you're lost in your thoughts... anyway, I guess that there is no takeback at ICCF, am I right ?
Of course this rule will also apply for the other games (big chess, Go, poker holdem). Right now, my opinion is not clear yet :/
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-24 14:13:33)
Karpov wins game 3
.. but he lost game 4, Kasparov leads 3-1
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-24 14:43:00)
Kasparov wins 3-1
Oops, actually Kasparov won the match already.
The final score: 3-1, quite logical and a nice promotion for chess in the world !
Thibault de Vassal (2009-09-28 19:53:18)
Rules modified & javascript added
The changes are now effective, no move will be taken back in any case ! (a javascript confirm window has been added to avoid accidental draw offers or resignations)
Thanks again for your help !
John Smith (2009-09-29 21:23:50)
Human/Centaur
Hi again,
Thank you for replying, therefore a NO_ENGINES flag is not present I better use engines as well as I don't think is meaningful to play vs a human-computer hybrid who probably is rated 1000+ Elo points above me (following the rationale centaur > rybka > SGM > GM > IM > me)
Not 100% what I was looking for but on the other hand this approach has the merit of studying the opening part of the game in great depth as positions can be analyzed to a great extent.
Xavier Pichelin (2010-02-06 14:25:55)
E. Kotlyanskiy new FICGS chess champion
Congratulation Edward!!
It's a very good player!!
He play very well the chess.
Edward deserves to gain win the champion FICGS because he better played than me.
Good Continuation Edward!!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-01 18:54:07)
Carlsen beats Jakovenko
A third win (for 4 games) for Carlsen in the tournament !
William Taylor (2009-10-02 11:30:07)
Amazing
He's doing brilliantly so far, and he had a winning position at one point in the 3rd game too but spoiled it in time trouble. I for one hope his winning streak continues.
Michel van der Kemp (2009-10-04 20:29:38)
IECG stopping
Today IECG announced that they will be stopping per 2010. The LSS Chessserver run by Ortwin Paetzold will more or less take over. Perhaps Thibault should advertise a bit at IECG for this server. :)
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 :))
Lazaro Munoz (2009-10-26 11:15:01)
Crazyhouse
You would need some special rules to prevent long boring clock time out waits, such as when one side is mated on the move. He will sit out and wait for the events on the other game. Typically what happens is that it will be mate on the move in the reverse direction. So either have adjudicated a win for the side with more time on their running clock or force them to move at least every 10 days say.
By the way if you try crazy house, you might want to also introduce shogi where pieces become the property of the opponent and can be dropped in. You won't need special char set since you can use the chess set with mods such as inverting them like the rook for the lance, golds can be queen, silvers inverted queens, etc and promoted pieces, the piece with a circle surrounding it.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-29 23:01:27)
Most active players, amazing statistics!
These statistics (updated every 2 days) are available at :
http://www.ficgs.com/about.html
And the overall winner is........ :)
Players most active : General (moves played)
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 124234
2. Rolf Staggat : 81806
3. Anderson Barradas : 55829
4. Stephane Legrand : 47936
5. Scott Nichols : 46711
6. Mark Noble : 37387
7. Findlay Murray : 35874
8. Volker Koslowski : 33241
9. Don Groves : 29539
10. Thibault de Vassal : 26104
11. Francisco Gramajo : 25281
12. Sergey Uzdin : 25256
13. Michael Sharland : 24890
14. Josef Riha : 24193
15. Jason Repa : 22765
16. Laurine Ségur : 22577
17. Alexis Bromo : 20198
18. Benjamin Collette : 20112
19. Fernando Vasquez : 19928
20. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 19174
21. Christian Koch : 18450
22. Evgeny Yarkov : 17168
23. Xavier Pichelin : 16559
24. Garvin Gray : 16388
25. Ranganathan Raman : 15750
26. Sebastian Boehme : 15190
27. Zdravko Stoyanov : 15186
28. Nick Ioffe : 15151
29. Phil Cook : 15007
30. Sean McNabb : 14572
31. Daniel Parmet : 13814
32. Ilmars Cirulis : 13118
33. Joaquim Malpalma : 13057
34. Dmitriy Panov : 12733
35. Nelson Bernal Varela : 12119
36. Marco Roncagliolo : 11741
37. Dmytro Romaniuk : 11648
38. Miroslav Rakovic : 11435
39. Nick Burrows : 11242
40. Janeen Walden : 10967
41. Claude Brisson : 10812
42. Sandor Porkolab : 10714
43. Christophe Czekaj : 10678
44. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
45. Peter Willoughby : 10634
46. Benjamin Block : 10633
47. Kate Lubeck : 10155
48. Charlie Neil : 10076
49. Darko Pipac : 10072
50. William Taylor : 10036
Players most active : Go
1. Don Groves : 17026
2. Claude Brisson : 10812
3. Nick Ioffe : 10795
4. Alejandro Suarez-Moreno : 10018
5. Mickaël Simon : 8986
6. Thibault de Vassal : 8870
7. Sean McNabb : 8666
8. Sergey Tarassov : 8236
9. Phil Cook : 8186
10. Tetsuya Kobayashi : 7816
Players most active : Chess
1. Josef Riha : 24119
2. Fernando Vasquez : 19820
3. Zdravko Stoyanov : 14523
4. Anderson Barradas : 12587
5. Ilmars Cirulis : 12200
6. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 12068
7. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
8. Garvin Gray : 10638
9. Scott Nichols : 10211
10. Charlie Neil : 10076
Players most active : Chess 960
1. Christophe Czekaj : 1224
2. Joaquim Malpalma : 916
3. Frederick Estieu : 672
4. Ilmars Cirulis : 605
5. Pavel Háse : 600
6. Sefa Sarihan : 524
7. Sandor Porkolab : 512
8. Jay Melquiades : 495
9. Christian Koch : 470
10. Rick Spangler : 447
Players most active : Big Chess
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 5583
2. Peter Willoughby : 4368
3. José Carrizo : 3319
4. Thibault de Vassal : 3199
5. Mark Noble : 2949
6. Sandor Porkolab : 2467
7. Volker Koslowski : 1887
8. Paul König : 1790
9. William Taylor : 1706
10. Ranganathan Raman : 1620
Players most active : Poker Holdem
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 111119
2. Rolf Staggat : 75570
3. Stephane Legrand : 41639
4. Anderson Barradas : 38671
5. Scott Nichols : 36500
6. Findlay Murray : 33008
7. Mark Noble : 31172
8. Volker Koslowski : 25829
9. Michael Sharland : 20721
10. Francisco Gramajo : 20431
Congrats Heinz-Georg, definitely you're the most addicted player ;)
Don Groves (2009-10-30 00:57:59)
And the winner is...
Thibault! He's made over 26,000 moves while also building and maintaining the site!
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 (2009-11-03 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)
Garvin Gray (2009-11-04 12:20:13)
2 or 4 for me.
I vote for option 2. This could already occur, could it now?
1 and 3 open up all manners of pandoras boxes about cheating and probably worse and more likely, paranoia about cheating and advice.
This already could occur with people advising outside of this site, but I do not think this is something that should be encouraged by having a forum dedicated to it.
Also there would be no way to prevent a player in the game seeing the comments/analysis while they are a guest viewing unless only those who sign up to view thread can see said thread.
Garvin Gray (2009-11-13 17:50:34)
can't view team mates results.
I have just tried viewing results from other tables via the links provided and am still having problems opening the links in a new window. I know I have mentioned this before, but thought I would point out that the issue still exists.
Michel van der Kemp (2009-11-13 19:26:27)
If I really want to delve into it
If I really want to delve into a position, I let two different engines analyze a position. If I'm out to win, I let both engines look for closed lines that don't lead to quick exchanges, unless they lead to clear advantages.
If engines evaluate a certain position very different, then those moves will catch my interest very quick, because those are the lines that may be highly imbalanced. I let both engines descend into those lines playing them against each other, and when you see the evaluation of one of the engines drop or go up, then it's a good time to draw a conclusion.
I hope that was clear a bit.
So yes it's good to have multiple engines.
Don Groves (2009-11-17 04:43:51)
Team scoring
Apparently, it's two points for a win and one point for a draw.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-17 20:59:43)
Anand vs. Lacrosse
Yes, the event was related on many well known websites :
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2007/04/anand-scored-17-wins-1-loss-and-1-draw.html
http://www.chessninja.com/dailydirt/2007/04/anand-simul-and-interview.htm
http://www.indianchessfed.org/News/2007/April/Anandwins17gamesincharitysimul.asp
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-19 11:43:05)
Magnus Carlsen is blitz world champion
Magnus Carlsen confirms he is in course for the chess world champion title ! He wins the blitz world championship in Moscow by 3 points ahead of world champion Viswanathan Anand.
1. Carlsen 31/42
2. Anand 28/42
3. Karjakin 25/42
4. Kramnik 24.5/42
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-19 15:53:28)
Chessbase humor :)
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5924
The winners at the closing ceremony: Sergey Karjakin (Bronze), Vishy Anand (Silver), Kirsan Ilyumzhinov (Natural Gas and Oil), Magnus Carlsen (Gold)
:)
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-29 17:18:44)
Viktor Korchnoi and castling
Just noticed this funny story in a Wikipedia article :)
"Viktor Korchnoi, in his 1974 Candidates final match with Anatoly Karpov, famously asked the arbiter if castling was legal when the castling rook was under attack. The answer was in the affirmative, and Korchnoi ended up winning the game."
Most probably a psychological attack, like often at this time and particularly during the matches Karpov vs. Korchnoi ;) Everybody knows the yoghourt story...
Hannes Rada (2009-11-30 13:55:08)
Andersson
No he was never ICCF champion.
But what I heard, in contradiction to his OTB chess preference, he played risky and very tactical in ICCF.
Andersson played in real chess extremely technical and low-risk, but winning every equal and boring endgame .....
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 (2009-12-04 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 :/
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
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (2009-12-22 17:59:10)
The best one
@( Locking firmely the window serve nothing, only small thiefs pass there, the big thiefs, enter trought the front door )@ Luc-Olivier Leclerc..
So, how it is that ?
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?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-27 14:08:37)
10 moves rule
IMO this rule is important because :
1) It dissuades cheating by creating several accounts playing together through proxies... This rule makes it really hard to win some points this way, it would be detected even more easily.
2) In many cases, new players (who did not realize that computer assistance was authorized, who do not like the correspondence time controls or who just wanted to try) forfeit their games after 3 or 4 moves rather than let it go. There is no doubt to me that this phenomenon would have much more bad effects on ratings.
3) It is likely that a player who "miniatures" another player is actually much stronger than his opponent, so his rating shouldn't increase so much.
Finally and that's the main point IMO, "unfair" situations are statistically negligible compared to the other possible rules. See the other servers...
So far I'm quite convinced that it is one of the best implemented rules here, and this is exactly the way I optimise the programs: "Statistics give better results than looking for perfection" :)
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
Wayne Lowrance (2009-12-29 00:56:03)
Rybka demise
Howdy all. I feel like voicing my opinion of Vas and Rybka. I honestly feel his hold on the chess community has weakened to the point of breaking. He has his problems. His source code apparently has been compromized. This has led him to not releasing a Rybka3+ as promised. The release of Rybka4 is very cloudy. Then there is this cloud Rybka internet rentel thing that is supported by no one it seems, me for sure.
Anyways this is just back drop for recent developments in free software engines that are very strong and are pushing R3 in ratings. I am thinking about the following engines, that I have downloaded and find very interesting AND strong :
Stockfish 1.6
Brite 0.4A
Spark 0.3
I have minimal experience with these engines. I just want all my friend here on FICGS to be aware of them and if interested they can download them and be on equal footing. My wish is for better chess and I have no ambition to have secret progams.
The important thing I feel is that the loss of Rybka engine does not put much of dent in play quality. It was gonna happen sooner or later, and now it seems sooner.
My honest evaluation today is that Rybka3 still provides the best insite to best mid game play.
I want to put in a word for Zappa. I fairly often use Zappa as my CC engine partner because of better end game analysis. Rybka has no peer in mid game analysis. Well I share these thought with you all for what it may be worth. Best 2010
Cheers.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2009-12-29 19:50:45)
RobboLito vs. Rybka 3
What are RobboLito, Ippolit and Igorrit ? It looks like these names are invading computer chess forums... As you may have read in the discussion mentioned below, the Rybka 3's source code may have been compromised and these engines "may" be clones of Rybka 3 (everyone does not agree on this). Good or really bad news, anyway this open source chess engine may have many consequences on the computer chess world, and correspondence chess as well...
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8031
From the wikispace mentioned below :
IPPOLIT : Intellectual Persons Promotion Of Leninist International Tradesunions (!??)
Q. What is RobboLito?
A. RobboLito is the version of IPPOLIT that now contains endgame tablebases, the RobboBases.
A few links on RobboLito 0.085f1a, Ippolit & Igorrit (says it all IMO) :
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/RobboLito
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/Igorrit
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/FAQ
see also : ippolit.wikispaces.com/Clone+(Question)
http://ippolit.wikispaces.com/News
-> IPPOLIT banned from chessprogramming wiki!
PlayChess banned IPPOLIT from use online also.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2r_V_QkmHjo
http://www.chesslogik.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.chess.com/forum/view/general/free-chessengine-robbolito-is-1-at-swisstest-rybka-2?lc=1
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm
"RobboLito is an open-source UCI chess engine by: Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, and Roberto Pescatore."
RobboLito does not yet support: multiPV, own book, egbbs, tablebases, multiple CPUs/cores, chess variants
Estimated rating: ~ 3300 ELO
Available versions:
RobboLito 0.085g3 w32
(optimized windows 32-bit executable and source code)
RobboLito_0.085g3_w32_no_SSE2
(optimized windows 32-bit executable - for older CPUs that don't support Intel SSE2 instruction set)
RobboLito 0.085g3_x64
(fast windows 64-bit PGO executable
compiled by peterpan)
RobboLito 0.085g3l_x86
(optimized linux 64-bit executable and source code
ported to linux by unisky)
http://www.cyclonechess.com/robbolito.htm
http://www.cyclonechess.com/rybka3.htm
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1261597025/4
http://www.chesspub.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1258991841
http://queenchess.blogspot.com/2009/11/fritz-12-vs-robbolito-e2-latest-version.html
http://lefounumerique.xooit.com/next?t=663 (french)
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (2009-12-30 22:35:09)
games
A little bump, we can say.
I have just finished 7 games with that gambit, winning them all. And not only with poor players.
Some games where really sharp.... The move c4.... is something to look for.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-05 07:40:22)
Poker Software?
There was several discussions on poker engines, one is there :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=7510
I can't find the thread where someone talked about a match between a poker engine & a world champion but as far as I can remember, the poker engine won! Anyway I'm quite sure that a program may play quite good poker now. The question is how it could "understand" a complete situation like here with 3 winning rounds and so on...
Kamesh Nookala (2010-01-24 19:34:39)
Resign before 10th move
Hello HOST,
I didnt know about this forum earlier and posted in the International Chat. I am sorry for that stupid mistake of mine. But the problem which i faced now is this. There is a guy whom i defeated in all 4 meetings where i played vs. him. This poor guy found me yet again and having known by now that he cant beat me, he simply resigned. I have no grievance against him. But in my very first Rapid B tour here at ficgs, i got an advantage of +-1.00 (approx.) vs. a player who simply resigned after my white 10th move. This meant that though I am awarded with a win, yet because my opponent resigned simply instead of playing the 10th move, he denied me earning some elo. That also implies that he saved his elo by simply resigning.
I dont know much above this site as i am pretty new to this. However, i have been already a victim of this sort of activities. For e.g., I could simply resign when i play bad openings and evals dip before 10th move and i can simply save my elo. That means i can simply resign vs. Big Guys as Black and play as Black only vs. weak players.
Just thought to express my views. Rest upto the moderators
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-24 20:18:09)
Resign before 10th move
Hi Kamesh, as I replied in the chat bar, it is not possible to save his elo by resigning before the 10th move, he'll lose the same number of points as if he resign at move 24 or 67. Indeed, the game is not rated for the winner before his 10th move, but if you are stronger than your opponents in this category, you'll gain almost the same number of points anyway. This rule is statistically fair, then this is only a question of time.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-01-26 16:24:43)
Go chinese rules : should pass count?
A player just told me that in chinese rules for the game of Go, consecutive pass change the score of the game (thus in some cases the winner as well), I just visited a few websites that do not even mention this rule that is taken in account by some Go programs.
In my opinion it does not have any sense to link this to the score of the game, but I may be wrong... Does anyone have an opinion on this and clear examples that show it should be taken (or not) here at FICGS ?
I'll add a word on this in the rules after it is clearer to me.
Thanks in advance!
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.
Zholy Zhou (2010-01-29 03:22:40)
make cool 3D flash banners for website
Recently I've been asked by a friend who wants to make a 3D flash banner for his website of wedding business. Many people included me thought that making a 3D flash banner is a very difficult thing for those who don't know flash skills, but I should say it's not like what you think if you have got a 3D flash banner making software Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery.
This article will show you how to create a cool 3D flash banner without Adobe Flash. A viewer can click on the banner to be transported to your website. You can use it on your own website to present your products or services. Also flash banners can be used to market your website as a banner ad on another website. A flash banner is much more attractive than still images. I bet you'll be agree with me if you see the 3D flash banner.
What you'll need:
1. Digital photos and background music for 3D flash banner
2. Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery(http://www.aneesoft.com/win-3d-flash-gallery.html)
Step 1: Download & install Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery
We'll be using a very nice 3D flash banner making software 'Aneesoft 3D Flash Gallery' to making a cool flash banner for wedding websites, head over here and download the free trial version(http://www.aneesoft.com/download/win/aneesoft-3d-flash-gallery.exe). Next step is to install the program.
Step 2: Import wedding photos, add captions, edit photos
You can add up to 500 photos that you want to use in your flash banner, type in caption and arrange the photos here. 3D Flash Gallery supports a wide range of file formats for images, such as .jpg, .bmp, .gif. You're able to add hyperlink for each photo of your flash banner to be transported to your website.
Step 3: Choose from a variety of flash banner templates
3D Flash Gallery offer you an easy way to make a cool flash banner by choosing from variety of flash banner templates. A flash banner template automatically put preset decoration to your flash banners. When you select a preset banner template, you're able to enhance it by customizing some additional settings, such as background, thumbnail effects, playback options and scrolling actions. For the adventurous users, explore the powerful advanced features and tools that gives you total control over how you compose your flash banners.
Step 4: Add some background music files to flash banner
In this step, you can add background music files to play along with your flash banner. To do so, click Add Music button to browse and add your music files. You can add, remove and edit the music files. And you may check the option to control the background music looping or not.
Step 5: Preview and publish your cool 3D flash banners
It is advisable that you preview the 3D flash banner at least once, before your publish it. Click and drag mouse for scrolling and tilting the 3D flash banner. Click on the thumbnail to zoom in and out the photos. You have several options to share and publish your 3D photo gallery. It depends on your needs.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-01-29 06:05:09)
Piece Values in Big Chess
I am amazed at the number of opponents that are still applying piece value from regular chess in big chess.
I made some regression analysis based on what we value in regular chess in terms of mobility and applied to big chess. Using the pawn and knight as the standard since in both games 3 pawns will probably beat a knight (if they are separated far enough). I assigned the pawn the value of 1 and and knight a value of 3 and extrapolated variables that we seem to use in valuing the other pieces such as number of squares it can reach, and penalty for being stuck on the same color.
I got the following values:
Pawn=1
Knight=3
Bishop=7 **
Rook=9
Queen=16
** The bishop value changes by pairs available, for example 4 white square bishops don't even come close to value 2 white squares and 2 black squares bishops so this is best value but it can go down to 6 or even 5 as pairs are lost.
Interesting, just like in chess a rook+bishop almost equals a queen and two rooks beat a queen. And a queen equals the value of the pawns (ok similar).
I still find opponents who exchange bishops for knights with impunity, not knowing the true values of the pieces.
I notice that nobody has ever mentioned this. I hope I did not give out some deep secret.
Of course you mileage may vary.
--laz
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (2010-01-29 07:10:50)
Piece Values in Big Chess
well. Some ending may really hard.
just like bishop versus knight, I don't think it would be easy to win.
of curse, do it if you got your queen trapped. man,
I love this game, we all start with four weak pawns. and lose at least 1.
Don Groves (2010-01-30 05:08:14)
Quote festival, part 6
Chess can only be "solved" by discovering a line that leads to a win by black or a draw by white from the first move. Hopefully, this will never happen.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-05 22:39:18)
Advanced games : Problems & solutions
When a player signs off (or sign on), his challenges are cancelled, the problem is that players rarely sign off (/logout) anyway. And it would partly solve the problem only, this is a web interface, people jump on other pages while waiting an opponent and just forget, even pop up windows are not enough.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-09 18:55:17)
Vocal message
A new small improvement, now FICGS should announce (in the pop up window) the start of a new advanced game with a vocal message. This will not totally solve the problem, but it gives some more chances to not miss the start of a game.
Svante Carl von Erichsen (2010-02-21 02:51:44)
Learning Go
Recently, someone asked how to learn Go, or who would teach Go, on the side bar chat. The question and my answer has been removed from there, so I'll post some hints here.
First, to learn the rules, I would recommend "The Interactive Way to Go" at http://playgo.to/iwtg/en
To learn playing, play as much as possible, first on small boards (9x9), then going to bigger ones (13x13, 19x19) when you feel that you can keep track of the game there. Play with proper handicaps to keep the game even and improve your feeling for the board.
Teaching can take the form of simple game reviews, where the stronger player analyzes a single game and shows the weakest points and how to correct them; the "Go Teaching Ladder" organizes a lot of such reviews (http://gtl.xmp.net). It can also be done in interactive sessions; these require either face to face contact or a "live" server, though (e.g. KGS at http://gokgs.com). It is generally thought that the teacher should be about 5 stones stronger than the pupil.
Especially in the beginning, the advice is to play, play, play, and not be too fixated on ranks or winning percentages.
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.
Pablo Schmid (2010-02-24 18:46:11)
Conditional moves
Hello Thibault, I don't know if that proposition has been made in the past, but there are somes servers that use conditionnal moves, it's an useful tool to win time for both players on forced moves. Do you think it would be possible to put that fonction in ficgs?
Je profite au passage pour te demander ce que tu penses finalement du rčglement sur 3 fois la męme position.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-24 21:50:20)
Conditional moves
Conditional moves have been discussed several times and mainly in the following discussion where I tried to explain the main reasons why I'm not favorable to this :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=4360
About the threefold repetition rule (situational vs. positional), there is something to fix indeed but I can't do it right now, I'm just doing all that I can to have a large broadband at home, which is my priority for 10 years now... but that's just hell!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-02-25 14:56:37)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)
I couldn't say it better than you guys :)
Hi Iouri, if you want to stop the game, you may use the rule 11.5 : You may call the referee a first time, after one month, just call the referee again & the game should be adjudicated.
"11. 5. Adjudications
In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.
If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."
Lazaro Munoz (2010-02-26 05:07:19)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)
Hannes, you forgot the most important reason for the DMD, Dead Men make no moves! Your opponent is hoping you will kick the bucket before he runs out of time. In some correspondence organization does not work since death only brings on an adjudication, and with a mate in 7, you will be the winner before grass begins to grow over your opponent.
Garvin Gray (2010-02-26 19:13:30)
mate in N moves. Game is going on :)
I thought it was a rule on this site that as soon as a tablebase win appears it can be claimed.
I certainly remember this being discussed in the forum and being agreed to.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-03-06 04:21:56)
Help : Tablebases, Rybka 3
I recently had a power failure that crushed my comp. I re installed vista.
Have trouble with R3 executing tablebases.
In a nut shell here is what I can tell you:
My table bases are located on hard drive D:(My Chess- tablebase).
I am pointing to that location for R3 to look for tablebases.
Here is what happens: Using Infinite analysis my pv's are getting TB hits but are not showing the solution path.
Am I missing some file ? some file misplaced ? MY bases are on D, R3 is on C, dont think that is a problem.
I sure could use some help
Thank you
Wayne
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.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-03-13 19:38:12)
Rating calculation
Hello,
Though i agree that my Rating is calculated on the basis of my opponent's TER in the previous tour plus my present rating, i want to bring on record certain facts, just to check if there is some error.
Rating after 1st March update = 2126
Games won after 1st March, in previous tours, where my TER is lower than the opponents :-
1) Rapid B 000132 (Game# 37866)
2) Rapid B 000137 (Game# 39182)
3) Rapid B 000137 (Game# 39186 - less than 10 moves, so no points for me)
4) Rapid B 000140 (Game# 39605)
Games drawn after 1 March, from the previous tour, where my opponent has better TER than me:-
1) Rapid B 000142 (Game# 40050)
Now, the detailed stats:-
First thing happened is, i drew a game from the previous tour on 1st March itself, i.e. Game# 40050 stated above. What i got is, lost my rating by 12 points. That means (2126-12 = 2114)
I gained 9 points from a draw in the Rapid M tour, which means 2114+9 = 2123
Excluding game at S.No.3 above where the moves are less than 10, i won the remaining three and i got 0 points from three wins. My substantial rise in rating afterwards is detrimental to me and my TER in that particular tour is no consideration at all is the moot question, because, at least i felt like i deserve a single point from each win i secured :)
However, if i missed something, i regret sincerely and tender and unconditional apology :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-13 21:43:04)
Rating calculation
You have to make the difference between ratings updated in real time (like advanced chess ratings) & the FICGS correspondence chess rating calculation, the idea of those ratings updated every 2 months is to avoid peaks, consequently when you win, draw or lose three games after the last rating calculation, your future rating does not take account of the first result THEN the second one THEN the third one, it is actually completely recalculated by taking account of all results at the same time, so you DO NOT win or lose points AFTER EACH result, your performance is recalculated according to the formula explained in the rules & that looks like the french FIDE rating calculation. One thing that explains "strange" variations after 2 or 3 results only is that the rating calculation is just more accurate when you have many results & particularly when your score is near 50%.
That should answer to the discussions I had with Kamesh & Ralph, but maybe my explanations are not so clear, sorry about that again.
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 its 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!
Garvin Gray (2010-03-23 07:12:12)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
The my messages page is showing March 3 as the starting date for the freestyle cup.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-03-26 15:40:02)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
Maybe I'll change that next time... The current rules are "If several players obtain the best score and the best Sonnenborn-Berger, they will share the prize.", in other words: The winner takes it all.
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 (2010-03-31 09:10:44)
Bug in game 41452
You use the slow moves interface, right? Do you use several windows with several boards in your navigator? If so, it may happen (specified somewhere in the conditions or the Help section).
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 (2010-04-05 00:58:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation
For some reasons that I'll explain below, I updated the advanced chess (bullet, lightning, blitz, freestyle) rating calculation rules to the following :
"Performance = Opponent Current Rating if the game is drawn, + 350 if the game is won, -350 if the game is lost.
The following bonus / malus applied to White and to Black makes ratings fair, as it is not possible to force a player to take White or Black before a game :
(White) Performance = Performance - 50
(Black) Performance = Performance + 50
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((9 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 10
The rating calculation does not take account of wins obtained by a stronger player when the Elo difference is greater than 350 points, the same with losses by a weaker player.
In case of a draw or loss against a player rated more than 200 points less, the opponent's rating considered in calculation is : Current Rating - 200. A player who wins a game cannot lose Elo points, a player who loses a game cannot win Elo points."
More details :
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess
The rule that just changed is "If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his : New Rating = ((8 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 10".
This rule will probably be updated again in a few months with a rating limit of 2200 instead of 2400, when advanced chess ratings will be more coherent with correspondence chess ratings.
The reasons are :
1) Advanced/freestyle chess is often neglected partly because players will likely lose some rating points (many strong players using Rybka 3-like engines still have a rating of 1800 or 2000, there are several reasons to this), the main point is probably the interface but I'm fixing it (e.g. the new touch-move option - see Preferences).
2) Chess engines are just stronger and stronger while the ratings do not increase with the previous rules, as a consequence players who just tried advanced chess once years ago shouldn't still top the rating list. It is of course a way for players to find their place quicker in the rating list & to incitate players to play more games as well.
Gregory Kohut (2010-04-05 03:58:26)
Chess is...
"Chess is fun, especially when you win."-Arthur Shen
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 19:37:35)
Congrats to David Evans!
David Evans wins this 2nd FICGS freestyle cup!
Here are the final standings (please note that the FICGS crosstable may be slightly different from the pairing software's one) :
1. Evans, David : 4,5 / 6 games played (berg 11,75)
2-3. Petrolo, Mauro : 4 / 6 games played (berg 12,5)
2-3. Taylor, William : 4 / 5 games played (berg 9,5)
4. van der Kemp, Michel : 3,5 / 5 games played (berg 6,75)
5. Boehme, Sebastian : 3 / 5 games played (berg 6,25)
6-7. de Vassal, Thibault : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 6)
6-7. Nichols, Scott : 2,5 / 5 games played (berg 4,25)
8. Pichelin, Xavier : 2 / 6 games played (berg 5,75)
9-10. Moreira, Jose : 1,5 / 4 games played (berg 3,5)
9-10. Gray, Garvin : 1,5 / 3 games played (berg 3,25)
Of course and unfortunately, the number of "played games" includes losses on time without playing. There were numerous problems with access providers during this tournament...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 21:19:28)
Challenges
This is the software's fault (my bad), not the player's... because there's a "challenge all players" function that is supposed to be used... so this is unlikely to be harrassment! Please keep cool in this case, you may move the challenges at the bottom of the window if you don't use it by clicking the arrow (towards the bottom). I'll add an option in Preferences to completely hide it, and probably a blacklist function also. Now working on.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-10 22:18:47)
Prize : 170 Epoints or...
David also won the total prize in this tournament, 170 Epoints (100 Epoints + 70 Epoints of entry fees as 3 titled players on 10 total entered the waiting list), or 100 Epoints + 75% of 70 in real money according to the rules, at the winner's discretion.
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#prize
Congrats :) .. let's hope the next freestyle tourney will be free of all these problems with access providers!
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.
David Evans (2010-04-12 11:51:37)
Freestyle Cup: April 2010
Hello as winner of the tour i feel apart from some internet problems the tour was a success.
It needed some more advertising to get more numbers but 30+15 was enough for me to play to a high standard.
Anyone who knows freestyle chess i play under the nick of Ultra-d a freestyle chess player who has made chessbase freestyle tour finals.
I thank u for the games and hope to see u guys in the next one.
D.evans (Ultra-d)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-13 18:03:22)
Match Against Rybka Forum
True, Garvin. I just made the suggestion at Rybkaforum.
Robert, Rybkaforum members who will play at FICGS will enter a real name for sure, just like other members. We do not have to specify our real name at the Rybkaforum, just following their rules.
Daniel Parmet (2010-04-15 07:56:42)
Download 6 pieces tablebases
http://www.newinchess.com/Gold_Nalimov_Tablebases_set-p-2231.html
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-19 16:41:06)
Advanced chess ratings calculation
As advanced chess (not correspondence chess) ratings move too fast, I just updated the calculation rules :
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2400, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-21 15:15:22)
Match Against Rybka Forum
Here are the pairings (games started at RybkaForum & are to start here)
Games at Rybka Forum:
Bobby C (RybkaForum) Vs. Harvey Williamson (FICGS)
Kamesh Nookala (FICGS) Vs. Mark Eldridge (RybkaForum)
omprakash (RybkaForum) Vs. Sebastian Boehme (FICGS)
Thibault de Vassal (FICGS) Vs. SpiderG (RybkaForum)
Weirwindle111 (RybkaForum) Vs. Wayne Lowrance (FICGS)
William Taylor (FICGS) Vs. Vytron (RybkaForum)
Games at FICGS:
Garvin Gray (FICGS) Vs. burch_michael (RybkaForum)
clement_george (RybkaForum) Vs. Michel van der Kemp (FICGS)
Mircea Hrubaru (FICGS) Vs. Gaetano Laghetti (RybkaForum)
Ivan Trajkov (RybkaForum) Vs. Robert Mueller (FICGS)
Samy Ould Ahmed (FICGS) Vs. José Sanz (RybkaForum)
Plant_Kevin (RybkaForum) Vs. Stéphane Legrand (FICGS)
Let's have fun :)
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 (2010-04-22 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 :)
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 (2010-04-24 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!
Mircea Hrubaru (2010-04-24 10:01:04)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship
I hope that the whole mess will stop after this WCC match and things will come back to the normal cycle, even if the whole logic behind the cycle seems fuzzy...
I think Vishy will win, but I'm afraid of attempts to repeat the "toiletgate" in any variant. It started already with the transportation issue...
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.
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 02:55:31)
Topalov wins Game 1
Wayne Lowrance (2010-04-25 03:14:27)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Thibault, okey dokie, I understand you, for sure, and you are right at reviewing your change options. You should. I am only one voice but I wanted to be heard.
I have said enough on Money entry into a high classification. You know I do not like it.
I agree 100% with your thinking regarding money. You need to profit. So any change that goes there and does not affect membership in a negative way is good for you. If the membership do not like certain changes, and they leave then money for you is affected. So it is a two way street.
Regarding chess rating should overall increase. Ok with me but do not see any advantage, all relative.
Regarding Increasing Title requirements.
That may be valid. Not sure one way or the other. Gotta think on that. But shooting from the hips, sounds ok.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 17:56:03)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship
Wasn't this move played before?
So maybe Anand is following your games guys ;)
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-25 20:06:21)
Anand wins Game 2 ! 1-1
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
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.
Hannes Rada (2010-04-27 23:52:33)
interesting games and rating
I think interesting games as well as boring games can be played in every class ...:-)
And rating means nothing nowadays.
1800 Elo player can be as strong or weak as a 2600 Elo rated player.
It's quite interesting: on the ICCF-forum the people are complaining that it is not possible to win a cc-game anymore.
Here people are claiming that it is not possible to increase the rating anymore.
Guys simply play chess, try different openings + ideas and you will have again fun, even if you don't win the game or you don't increase your rating :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-28 08:53:55)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
Very true Hannes...
Many players try to reach the highest ratings before to relax and play more for fun & more openings (there is often a period to learn to lose &/or break the ego at correspondence chess, unlike Go)
A way to find more fun may be in faster games, with more madness and wins/losses... I hope that more players will try bullet games here :)
But that's not a reason not to talk about the ratings issue to try to make it more coherent if possible.
On the rate of draws, I'm not sure if it is so high yet, games played at the highest level may have less draws than in the category below as players do everything to avoid drawish lines. It is probably always too high anyway :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-04-28 21:22:41)
Game 4: Anand wins again
How to explain so many wins in this match? Let's hope it can continue like this as a way to promote chess as a still living & not drawish game. Do you think that the players took many risks so far? Nice game anyway.
Ryan Cross (2010-05-02 22:24:38)
Speeding up Poker games
...Furthermore, another idea would be raising blinds to 2/4 after hand 25 or thirty, then 4/8 after hand 50, raising every ten hands after that. Blinds at 2/4 seem to be incentive to make bets much bigger often enough.
Admittedly, I haven't been playing poker here long enough to have a fine tuned idea of what exactly the problem is as far as poker games taking too long, so I'm just throwing these out there.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-05 15:41:56)
Topalov wins Game 8
Topalov strikes back in Game 8, now the score is 4-4, and as Mircea noticed it, the game follows a line until move 18 in another game played here "de Vassal vs. Leemans 1/2-1/2", I'm not sure if 18.a5 is a real improvement but it worked well against a world champion, at least!
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 (2010-05-09 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?
Garvin Gray (2010-05-10 14:42:11)
Careful wht you do with our loved F
First of all, can we change the incorrect spelling in the thread title, it is start to shit me lol
Anyways, on to the thread topic.
Ok, now I understand what you are talking about Thib. Different tournament winners decide to exercise their right to enter the next highest division at the same time.
Rule One: Winning a tournament entitles you to enter the next highest division up. This is valid for the next tournament only in the division you have qualified for.
Upper qualification can not be stored for use at any future time.
The qualification only exists in the section you qualified in ie standard or rapid. It can not be transferred to the other section.
Thib, I do not think there will be ever be a situation where 5 players try and exercise their qualification rights into the exact same tournament at the same time.
Also the two rules above should help in reducing the chances of this happening.
In cases where two or more players do attempt to enter the same 'upper' division, the first person to pay their entry fee will get entry.
The idea of first person to pay is the earlier the commitment, the more benefit the 'committer' receives.
I have not yet come up with an idea for those who try to exercise their earnt option and miss out. Should they lose their opportunity, or it retained for the next tournament that they could enter.
Could be quite a long reserve list and also by the beginning of the 2nd tournament, the player may have lost more rating points and it can be shown by their results that they probably should not be going up.
Maybe on the reserves list, it should be listed by TER and the highest TER gets first option when it comes to second tournaments.
Does this make sense?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-10 15:16:19)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Well, the discussion continued in another thread :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=8555
Garvin's ideas may work fine, but while some players will like the benefits, some others will be deceived not to be able to take advantage of it (quite a chancy factor)...
Here is my new proposal (based on a few Epoints, not real money) :
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Please correct anything that looks unclear and let's discuss it again :) Thanks for all your help Garvin & all!
I'd like to have Wayne, Michel's & other opinions on the proposed changes, is this at least more acceptable according to you?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 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.
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 18:50:39)
Anand wins game 12 !
Quite a surprise to me, Anand beats Topalov with Black in the very last game... He is chess world champion again ! Congratulations to him!
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-11 19:25:22)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I am very much in favor of the winner of his/her own class tournament earning as a prize the right to play one up class. This actually brings a relevant prize to the tournaments! Up until I have had no reason to care if I won a tournament or not. Why? What do I get? Pride? Ego? Bragging Rights? Epoints? I get nothing! Now I earn the right to player stronger players! A true prize indeed!
I don't agree if two players tie though that one just mystically be given the prize and the other not. I understand you don't want to dilute the rating pool... but you can force one person to wait til waiting list fills and each person can sit in it one at a time.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 19:37:04)
6 options
So, to be clearer here are the 6 options :
1) Tournaments winners may entry the next category waiting list according to the conditions described a few posts above and for 10 Epoints.
2) Tournaments winners may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
3) Any player may entry the next category's waiting list for 10 Epoints.
4) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Epoints according to his rating (e.g. 10 Epoints for the next category, 30 for 2 categories above, 60 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
5) Any player may entry any higher category's waiting list for 10 to 100 Euros [not Epoints] according to his rating (e.g. 10 Euros for the next category, 20 for 2 categories above, 40 for 3 categories above, 100 for 4 categories above).
6) No change.
Please choose :)
As for me, while choice #2 looks like a non-sense between my first proposal (choice #5) and my last proposal (choice #1), I feel that choices #1 and #4 could be ok, the #4 may help to build bigger prizes while the #1 is the most fair (after choice #6 of course).
How would you rank these choices?
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-11 19:39:23)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I very much like option 1. I would also point out that this is the appeal of the WCH tournament. You get to play some stronger players and if you manage to win your group... your prize is even stronger players!
Kamesh Nookala (2010-05-11 19:57:10)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Dear Thib,
Points 1 and 4 are quite good. However, here comes the question.
What if the winner of the preceding (lower) category, after paying 10 e-points and entering into the next higher rated tour, fares decent enof, for e.g. finishes 2nd in the higher category (or doesn't lose a single game)? Will he have to again win his category of event and then pay 10 e-points and join the immediate higher rated event again? Or, he will "earn" a chance to play that higher rated category again considering his previous performance?
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-11 20:14:40)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Hi Kamesh, I think we should just follow the conditions that I copy again here (valid for choice #1, a tournament winner may buy a ticket if) :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
Let's say the winner of a class B tournament then wins a class A tournament after having bought a ticket, he has good chances to see his rating increased after the next rating calculation and before that his possibility to buy a new ticket (for class M) expires. Maybe the possibility to buy a ticket should be valid 3 months, I'm not sure.
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.
Daniel Parmet (2010-05-12 20:25:24)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
I think option1 is the best. But I completely agree with Garvin. Why not try it? We tried those silly rating band idea even though we knew it was bad. Why not try this? I think its a good idea. I agree that options 2-5 are silly.
Right now as it stands, you get nothing for winning a tournament, you might not even get many points either. If you are 1990ish and beat 6 1800s. They might have been much stronger than 1800 but the results also came in slowly 1/1 for each rating period... you don't stand to gain very many points maybe not even enough to get you to the next rating band... but you would be guaranteed to play the next rating band for sure because you won the tournament. I think you'll see alot of the invitations into the rating bands helping people out that are only missing it by a few rating points anyways. Besides its a REAL prize for winning the tournament, right now all we give is a pat on the back!
Wayne Lowrance (2010-05-13 18:20:15)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Been giving a lot of thought to this post. At first I was opposed to it. I think primarily maybe I was influenced by my thinking " I climbed through the levels", so anyone can if they dedicate the effort as I did.
Now I am swayed to support Garvin Grey posting ideas.
I recognize very well that there are many players qualified to move up but find it frustrating to make headway.
It comes down to this. Chances are if they win a class tournament, they probably deserve to advance an level. If not competitive, they will not stay at that level. So anyhow I am posting as to what I believe the proposal #1 is in fact.
- Winners of any standard (class) or rapid tournament, whatever the game, may buy a ticket for 10 Epoints to enter the waiting list for the next tournament category according the following conditions :
* No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise.
* The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the waiting list.
* At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list.
* The possibility to buy a ticket is valid up to 2 months after the end of the tournament and only after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament].
* The player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
That is a paste of your thread Thibault.
If that is what you and Garvin want or close to it then I say why not ! Give it a go.
Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2010-05-14 12:26:10)
Rybka 4 beta is playing...
http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?topic_view=threads&p=348113&t=34270
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16655
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=16620
"Rybka 4 will be available on May 28."
http://www.newinchess.com/Shop/ProductDetails.aspx?ProductID=2479&utm_source=New+In+Chess&utm_campaign=de04452343-Campaign_36_12_5_2010&utm_medium=email
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 :)
Gabriel Ciobanu (2010-05-19 10:53:55)
Go (weiqi) is...
a game about hiding emotions. Who hides better his emotions, wins... This is a joke!
Go is an unique game, about self esteem, self confidence, respect and concentration.
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 (2010-06-02 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
Wayne Lowrance (2010-06-02 16:52:10)
Rybka 4 wins ICT10
And, the one loss came about by Server failure
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-02 17:57:22)
Rybka 4 wins ICT10
Oh ok, thanks for the information... I didn't see that. Now I understand :)
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-06-02 20:44:57)
Rybka 4 wins ICT10
It was not Rybka 4, it was Rybka 4b3 cluster and is really different from Rybka 4.
From the chessbase note:Note that both Rybka and Sjeng played on 128 core clusters; Junior and Hiarcs each had 12 cores, Shredder had eight.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-06-04 14:16:08)
Rating update
So get your wins in now and save your resignations until after July 1st ;)
Vincent Dups (2010-06-07 20:42:32)
Problčme d'affichage
Bonjour,
Je suis sois Firefox 3.6.3 et sous Vista et lorsque j'ouvre mes parties pour répondre et envoyer mon coup l'échiquier est déformé et certaines pičces n'apparaissent pas, et j'ai ā la place ce message : [AD]2) window.location='/user_page.php?page=move_express&game=43811&flip=';">
Merci pour votre aide ā ce propos.
Je précise que j'ai le męme problčme sous IE.
Bien cordialement.
Gregory Kohut (2010-06-14 04:09:24)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions
I think Brazil will win the World Cup.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-14 22:26:02)
10 moves rule for Poker
An interesting case... a Poker holdem game finished after only 6 moves (6 played by each player)! The winner was surprised to see that he didn't win any rating point, indeed there's a rule at FICGS (11.6) that says : "Games are not rated for the winner if less than 10 moves have been played by his opponent (most probably forfeit, silent withdrawal or obvious cheating)"
Another reason for this rule is that any player who lose to another one in less than 10 moves is most probably overrated so he should lose some points but his opponent may not win points, so I think that this rule may be ok for poker as well (and I'm not sure if playing all-in each time deserves to win some points :)), but I'd prefer to read some other opinions anyway.
What do you think?
Garvin Gray (2010-06-16 14:13:15)
Browser password issue
I do not believe it is a cookie issue.
The issue is the same in both firefox and chrome.
In the latest firefox version, I go to tools-options and under privacy, I have showing=
History- Firefox will- and the drop down option I have chosen is: Remember history.
Then it says that Firefox will remember your browsing etc etc etc.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-17 14:00:00)
10 moves rule for Poker
"Or, having the 10 move rule could serve as an encouragement to try going all in all the time as their rating is protected if they lose."
Their rating is NOT protected if they lose before the 10th move. This rule concerns the winner only.
William Taylor (2010-06-17 22:47:14)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions
I predict Argentina will win.
Garvin Gray (2010-06-28 12:40:37)
Save/Reload hash in Rybka
Ahh good, you are using CB Rybka (F12).
CB I take it stands for chessbase.
I have been trying to following procedure in Fritz 12 to save hash, but does not seem to be working for me.
After using infinite analysis, I go to engine (home-insert- board options at the top of the gui.).
I then choose change main engine and then click on engine parameters. Do I have this right so far?
Then I click on save hash. Do I need to tick preserve analysis?
I have even tried after saving hash and then restarting F12 clicking on load hash, but nothing I seem to try gets the engine to go back to where I was with the previous analysis.
Help!
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
Don Groves (2010-07-07 06:41:09)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions
With the same result. Germany to win the cup!
Rolf Staggat (2010-07-09 14:25:42)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions
PAUL said: Spain wins final, Germany wins 3rd place.
Until now PAUL was always right.
PAUL lives in a octopusses garden in Oberhausen.
Hannes Rada (2010-07-09 22:46:19)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions
> PAUL said: Spain wins final, Germany > wins 3rd place.
> Until now PAUL was always right.
> PAUL lives in a octopusses garden in > Oberhausen.
Ask Paul who will be the next FICGS chess champion :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-08 13:12:37)
Stay on Same Board
Hi Phil, ok now I see what you mean : "redirected to the viewer page after playing your move", yes it could be useful for Poker (in the fast moves process). Ok, I could add a checkbox somewhere so that when one play a move, the next window be the viewer (to see the new card or result)... Added to the wishlist.
I had some busy times these last weeks but there should be numerous updates at the end of the month.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-08-09 19:40:51)
Future Rating Question
In some cases, games are not taken in account in the rating calculation, e.g. if less than 10 moves are played (for the winner only).
Complete rules:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
Feel free to ask if you have any doubt...
Scott Nichols (2010-08-09 21:12:59)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Just a note to say how this new rule is affecting at least one player here (me), :) I "earned" entry to a higher class tournament by winning the class just below. I paid my ten E-points and received entry into the next higher class. We have been playing for a while and I am holding my own ok. I have met new players and am overjoyed at the chance to play them. They are all friendly and welcoming. Life couldn't be better, ......but....... Maybe it's just me, but I feel at this point that I never REALLY earned my way into this realm. The old way was to suffer through months and years of climbing the rating ladder a little at a time and then finally reach that next level. Also, just my opinion, is that these days there really isn't a big difference in strengths between 1850 and 2450 given that we all have fast computers running on Rybka mostly. The difference I find is the human side of the ratings. The old days whether Shredder could beat Fritz, or Deep Junior could beat Hiarcs are long gone. So I guess what I'm trying to say without rambling any further, is that as much as I like playing in the higher section, I would prefer to "EARN" it the old way. Just one players opinion, Thank you
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.
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.
Daniel Parmet (2010-08-27 09:42:06)
Quote festival, part 6
-Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.
-Going to church doesn't make you a Christian any more than standing in a garage makes you a car.
-We live in a society where pizza gets to your house before the police.
-The last thing I want to do is hurt you. But it's still on the list.
-If I agreed with you we'd both be wrong.
-Knowledge is knowing a tomato is a fruit; Wisdom is not putting it in a fruit salad.
-Politicians and diapers have one thing in common. They should both be changed regularly, and for the same reason.
-Evening news is where they begin with 'Good evening', and then proceed to tell you why it isn't.
-I thought I wanted a career, turns out I just wanted pay checks.
-A bank is a place that will lend you money, if you can prove that you don't need it.
-A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
-God must love stupid people. He made SO many.
-The sole purpose of a child's middle name, is so he can tell when he's really in trouble.
-The voices in my head may not be real, but they have some good ideas!
-You do not need a parachute to skydive. You only need a parachute to skydive twice.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-08-31 16:29:58)
Latest deletions of chat
I agree,
Thib perhaps might have programmed in such a way to delete chat which is something like spam, but unfortunately all crucial chats are being deleted.
I am being pissed off more because, i often get back to the chat which took place between me and Scottie on 23rd August.... I posted about my win vs. Mark (Rybkaforum), and that got deleted too..
It needs to be rectified instantly !!
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.
Paul Valle (2010-09-19 01:13:11)
Alchemy
Thanks Mr. Munoz.
That tip was much appreciated. "An apple a day makes 365 apples are a year". That's straight in on my top 10 list!
I will add my own quote:
"A major breakthrough in Alchemy! I've turned Gold into Led!"
(After losing a winning position)
kind regards, Paul
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-19 22:34:47)
Corr. Chess Maxims
The more you talk Scott the less you make sense. You should just stop. Your idea for Corr Maxims is good and your #1 Maxim makes sense. The fact that #2 & #3 don't just means you made a mistake. Everyone makes mistake. But okay on to your rambling points.
What does Obama or IL have to do with anything? I don't even get it.
Hmm bad analogy time, okay yes talking on your cell phone in a theater gets you kicked out. At small establishments even just banned. Certainly not a right nor is it proclaimed as such anywhere. It is not "protected" and is well known to be improper. Unlike offering a draw being 80 pts lower has no negative connotation anywhere. Its not illegal. It is protected by the rules. It is not known to be improper. Incorrect analogy.
Driving slow in the fast lane. Highways actually have minimum speed limits and I have seen people get tickets for going below the minimum. On top of that, most states have laws about he fast lane being for passing purposes so they have rules about "slower" traffic keep right (state dependent). So not only is it again something protected by law, it is improper, it can be illegal (state dependent). So again an incorrect analogy.
As much as you wish to live in this strange world where you have to be a higher rated to offer draws, thats not how the rules of chess work. In fact, I would quit playing chess if things did work that way (because it makes no sense). I know people that have as their personal rule not to accept draws if they are the higher rated (fine, thats silly but your choice) (and it always backfires too since they usually end up losing the trying position so badly trying to win it as the "higher" rated should). But at least in the end the rules are preserved - my right to offer a draw was not revoked. You seem to be missing the point that at move 1, ONE player would always be at a disadvantage under your system of only the higher rated being allowed to offer draws. This is quite silly because as all chess players know - no rating system is perfect. Trying to tell someone that a 1989 is 100% better than a 1988 is impossible yet you willing to deny the 1988 his rights of offering draws when he plays that person 1 pt above him? You might just be better off declaring you don't accept draws (I know players like that too). But then you might see people head towards drawish positions knowing your policy and playing them for 200 moves until you're bored. You starting to see the point yet? Whatever system you concoct, there are tradeoffs. The one you proposes has tradeoffs that make no sense for anyone.
Scott Nichols (2010-09-19 23:26:52)
Corr. Chess Maxims
Of course you don't get it, and by this point I am sure you never will. In the analogies, we all have met "these" type of people. Sometimes they get punished, sometimes not. I think anyone playing in your tournaments could get away with most anything.
AGAIN, in my system as you call it, it is just a GENERAL rule of conduct. Of course players rated 1 point apart do not fall into this category. The main point I make is that most players take their rating seriously. Players work their whole life to achieve a Master or Grandmaster title. They are titles awarded players as a token of respect for their accomplishment from their peers. Maybe we aren't IM's or GM's, but our rating has been EARNED.
So for one player who is a good deal lower rated than the other to offer a draw, especially in the early part of the game, is showing a lack of respect for what that person has accomplished.
If fact one draw offer is not bad at all, no matter what, it happens, but to keep at it again and again is bad form.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-20 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."
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-21 04:23:11)
Quote festival, part 6
"The high road is always easy to find, just not always easy to take."
--Patricia Potyka
You can't do anything about the wind, but you can always adjust the sails." --Dr. Bob Chope
"It takes less time to do a thing right, than it does to explain why you did it wrong."
--Henry Longfellow
If you change the way you look at things, the things you look at change."
--Wayne Dyer
The true triumph of reason is that it enables us to get along with those who do not possess it.
--Voltaire
Don Groves (2010-09-23 08:07:10)
Quote festival, part 6
Seems like we agree then. There are things that can be reasoned about and there are other things that cannot. Part of wisdom is knowing which is which. And, as Wittgenstein said, that which we cannot reason about we should not speak of at all -- at least in a reasonable way. That's what metaphor, paradox, and parable are for. We may not be able to define certain things rationally, but we can hint at them.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-09-27 02:32:45)
whole database transfers made simple
Gosh, it gets more troubling. I just click on it and it executes the line. I dunno what else to say. I have no know problem with this in the past. What does it say when you right click on it ? My right click brings up several link options ?......I am using Bing ! if that helps. and windows 64 deluxe. Can you just provide a simple transfer link to rybka tablebase ?
wayne
Wayne Lowrance (2010-09-27 02:57:43)
whole database transfers made simple
Thibault these are my right click options
1 open link in new window
2 openl link in new tab
3 book mark this link
5 save link as
6 send link
7 copy link location
These are my options on right mouse click of all games pgn
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-29 17:56:58)
Ilyumzhinov leaves Kalmykia presidency
...and Kirsan Ilyumzhinov wins again, he will be president of FIDE during 4 more years, 2010-2014. Hard defeat for Karpov.
Daniel Parmet (2010-09-29 23:39:50)
WCH Stage 1 Tiebreaks
If I understand the tiebreaks correctly the higher rated based on entry rating goes on. If this is tied it goes to their current rating at the time the tie is concluded.
First question, is this correct?
2nd question, why are ratings the tiebreaker?
Final question, why is entry rating first over rating at the time concluded? Is this because someone could drag out a game knowing their rating will become higher in the next period? If that is the reason, it would seem to me you couldn't use current rating even if the entry ratings were tied.
It just seems a tad silly to use rating as a tiebreaker when there might be a 1-20 point difference. If its a large difference it makes some sense but even then little.
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 :)) !
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-02 18:14:34)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
This is what the rules currently say "Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in high rated groups if possible. Winners of these groups will be directly qualified for stage 3, others will play stage 2."
Though by that, it means that all players have to play stage1 regardless?
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-02 21:51:28)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Yea its not clear to me either. I thought that it meant 2300s get seeded into stage2. No one gets seeded into stage 1. Winners of stage1 have to play stage2 to get into stage3. However this is not at all what it says.
It says EVERYONE plays stage1. If someone 2299+ wins stage1 they can skip stage 2. If someone 2299 or lower wins stage1 they go on to stage 2.
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-04 01:02:30)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
I would say a better way of wording it is that Everyone plays stage1. If someone 2299+ wins stage 1 they skip stage2. If someone 2299 or lower wins stage 1 they go on to a stage 2 group.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 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?
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?
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-05 19:12:30)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
My point is that seed one has a HUGE advantage because of the fact 1) Tie breakers AND 2) colors are always in their favor. So it makes it very very hard for another player to overturn this. Black against the highest rated usually best you can ask for is a draw resulting in the fact you now have to win the rest of your games in order to not Tie the highest rated (or pray for an upset). Cause if you tie... they just win on tiebreaks.
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-05 19:16:44)
Match Against Rybka Forum
darn I was interested in playing in this! Oh well maybe next time! Good luck guys, win!!!! Go ficgs :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 19:36:41)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Well, according to the numbers given by Philip, the number of wins by a player who is not seed 1 is over the number of wins by seed 1, but I agree that the advantage is big, that's why we could reverse the colors (I'll open a new topic to discuss it if we continue this way). But I still think that 7 players are open enough, everything can happen.
Daniel Parmet (2010-10-05 20:41:54)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
No according to the numbers given by Philip my point is huge.
7 wins, 7 ties meaning 14 went on.
2 wins, 7 ties meaning 2 went on.
5 wins, 2 ties meaning 5 went on.
1 win, 2 ties meaning 1 went on.
Notice that because of color and tiebreaks the giant separation in place 1 2 and 3. It actually went back on spot 3 because they had white most likely. Clearly spot 2 is the worst position to hold in the tournament. Everything is against you. Color and tiebreaks.
Anyways, I agree it needs to be discussed. If others disagree with me then thats that I guess.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-05 21:22:04)
WCH Stage 1 groups (new players)
Okay, the numbers must be taken carefully, 2 wins 7 ties for seed 2 do not necessarily mean 2 went on... And I just counted for WCH 6:
Seed 1 - 2 wins 4 ties 6 qualified
Seed 2 - 2 wins 1 ties 3 qualified
Seed 3 - 5 wins 3 ties 5 qualified
Seed 4 - 1 wins 0 ties 1 qualified
Seed 5 - 0 wins 1 ties 1 qualified
Seed 6 - 0 wins 1 ties 0 qualified
Seed 7 - 1 wins 0 ties 1 qualified
And for WCH 5:
Seed 1 - 2 wins 2 ties 4 qualified
Seed 2 - 3 wins 2 ties 3 qualified
Seed 3 - 2 wins 3 ties 4 qualified
Seed 4 - 0 wins 0 ties 0 qualified
Seed 5 - 2 wins 2 ties 2 qualified
Seed 6 - 2 wins 0 ties 2 qualified
Definitely everything can happen in these groups, and I did not count the players invited to join stage 2, that do not favour top seed and that actually favour seed 2 over seed 3... Anyway as I said, I'm ok to discuss the idea to reverse colors in a new topic.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-13 17:25:44)
Lightning time control
Hi Garvin, I'm not favourable to this change for the following reasons:
1) This would be the 2nd change for this time control in a few months...
2) Bullet & lightning would not be different enough.
3) The freestyle time control has its reasons IMO : 30 mins. for the opening/database & key moves analysis, 15 sec. inc because longer would be too long, while the lightning time control is designed for better analysis during the whole game. A 30+15 time control would be great also but it would be one too much :/
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?
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.
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 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 (2010-10-26 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.
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.
Garvin Gray (2010-10-27 03:10:37)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Now Thib sees why 6 or so round swiss would not be any longer than Double Elimination :)
Also with the DE format, the player from the winner's side has to wait a full round while the two remaining losers play their preliminary final two games.
In regards to tie breaks from second round onwards, the person who has the better score from previous rounds could have draw odds.
To explain- lets say in round one Player A wins 2-0 and Player B wins 1.5-0.5. In round two Player A and B meet. In this scenario Player A would advance if their match was drawn.
This method of tie break would count no matter what round it was. So in the Grand Final, who ever had scored the most amount of points previously would have draw odds.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-27 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 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 (2010-10-30 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...
Garvin Gray (2010-10-31 02:46:18)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!
Damn, that means play starts here at 10pm tonight.
Jai Prakash Singh (2010-10-31 06:41:56)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!
Usually, winter clock means one hour after but it is being declared one hour before, how come? Like Indian clock is 9 hrs 30 minutes ahead of New York time in summer and 10 hrs 30 minutes in Winter.
Don Groves (2010-10-31 06:53:58)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!
In the US and Canada Winter time starts at 02:00 Nov. 7th, the first Sunday in November.
Robert Mueller (2010-10-31 09:24:12)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!
Clocks are set back one hour. So the worst thing that can happen is, that people show up early.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-31 11:09:48)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!
Damn, I had 50% chances and what I said was pure confusion... I probably meant "Tomorrow it will be 1pm. 1 hour after" (if it means something)... Anyway, server time is the only one to trust.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-31 11:40:34)
Freestyle Fun
Even with the crosstable link ?? Very strange... Did you try in the same window? (replacing this page)
Garvin Gray (2010-10-31 12:00:44)
Freestyle Fun
The crosstable link has opened to a new page with a different looking format.
Robert's link still presents the same issues, no matter if I try and open it in new window, new tab or by copying link to either same or different browser.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-31 12:10:44)
Freestyle Fun
"new page with a different looking format", yes that's normal, if you see the crosstable (you may enlarge the window so that it appears perfectly) that's ok.
The problem with the other link is ununderstandable to me :/ looks like your browser does not manage cookies/sessions with several tabs.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-10-31 19:00:19)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congratulations to Eros Riccio who convincingly won this 3rd Freestyle Cup !!
As for me I'm really happy with this result... I could have lost the last game on time (connection lost just after the draw), and time pressure decided in a lost position vs. Sebi... :/
- The standings :
Place Name Score Berg.
1 Eros Riccio 4.5 - 15.25
2 Thibault de Vassal 4.5 - 14.25
3 Kamesh Nookala 3.5 - 11.5
4 Robert Mueller 3.5 - 10.75
5 Gino Figlio 3.5 - 10.5
6-7 Ruben Comes 3.5 - 8.75
6-7 Yuriy Perikov 3.5 - 8.75
8-9 David Evans 3 - 6.75
8-9 Sebastian Boehme 3 - 6.75
10-11 Richard Bitoon 2.5 - 5.5
10-11 Jai Prakash Singh 2.5 - 5.5
12 Scott Nichols 2.5 - 5.25
13 Garvin Gray 2.5 - 3.5
14 Marcel Jacon 2 - 2.5
15 Xavier Pichelin 1.5 - 3
16 Jose Moreira 1 - 2
(the score is the one shown in the software, it may be not the same in the FICGS tournament page)
Finally we avoided the connection problems (really lucky), this was a really nice event, I would like to thank all players & especially Garvin who was up very late to play!
Lots of fun, definitely... I'll try to organize the 4th edition in about 3 months!
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-31 19:10:44)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congratulations Eros,
you got a cake* to eat !!
Thanks to all who played vs. me and those who didn't.
You guys rock !
Finally, thanks Thib for hosting such an eventful tour :)
Ruben Comes (2010-10-31 19:11:59)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congrat Eros!!!
And thenks for the great tourn Thib!
Sebastian Boehme (2010-10-31 20:00:30)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Also here goes my 50 cents about the tour.
First of all: Thib, very nice tour. Without you we would not have such nice events. FICGS rocks!
Secondly: Congrats to Eros, who made a last minute join and made me think: oh maybe he is out of shape, but you proved the opposite!
Last but not least....am grrrrr about my own performance a bit. I think time management I need to practise a little better next time. ;-)
Many regards,
Sebastian
Eros Riccio (2010-10-31 21:33:09)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
A big thank you to everyone who played, making this event possible, and especially to Thibault, who did the efforts needed to make this event possible, and also did a great TD Job! (and let's not forget his second place ;-)
Ciao,
Eros.
Don Groves (2010-10-31 22:51:32)
Freestyle round 4, careful winter clock!
An easy way to remember which way the clocks go is: 'Spring ahead; Fall back."
It makes sense in English anyway ;-)
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-31 22:52:16)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Great job to all the players! Eros you have proven to be one of the best on the forum and possible the world. Keep up with the great work :)
Jimmy
Wayne Lowrance (2010-11-01 00:48:48)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Wow, my congrats to all who played. I feel I missed a special time. My chess work load did not permit me to play, But I am hopeful to join next time. I am chessed out, putting a ton of time on my FICGS games and falling further and further behind :)
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-11-01 01:00:54)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
I endorse all the comments previously stated.
I would like to see two changes for next time:
1) Longer time control. Yes I realise it will take longer to play, but I felt a lot of the games were about the computer and not much about true freestyle.
2) Starting at a different time :) and starting the days on time.
Gino Figlio (2010-11-01 04:04:09)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congrats Eros!
I enjoyed all the games and friendly atmosphere. This was a first but very nice freestyle experience for me.
Many things to learn from and hope to do better next time!
Special thanks to Thibault, how do you manage to play two roles at the same time and excel on both?
Jai Prakash Singh (2010-11-01 05:09:09)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congrats Eros and Thib! Great performances. It was a nice experience for me too except that I was getting disconnected just before start of my games. So reconnection caused initial time loss in many games for me.
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.
Xavier Pichelin (2010-11-01 09:48:33)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Congrats Eros and Thibault!!
Very good games!!
Kamesh Nookala (2010-11-01 13:58:46)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
Thanks Singh,
But Winners always steal the show :)
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.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-02 10:20:43)
Eros Riccio wins the 3rd Freestyle Cup !
With the 30 mins plus 15 secs time control, more rounds on two days becomes problematical.
With a 1300 ficgs starting time, those from the Americas were starting at about 5am and I was starting at 10pm on the second day.
So adding an extra round would mean either play starts early, or goes later.
The only other solution would be to add an extra day and play 9 rounds.
In part, the time zone issue is another reason why I think a longer time control might be better.
Garvin Gray (2010-11-03 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 (2010-11-06 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.
Thibault Pillon (2010-11-30 19:25:02)
GO: Game 32800
fuseki.info has a fuseki database with win/loss statistics for each move. UNfortunately the database is not very large
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-06 23:02:56)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?
I saw several wins in a few other matches so I'll look at the whole results of this cycle... I hope we'll not have to change the current system but if necessary we'll discuss it for sure.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-12-07 19:21:30)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
Of course I vote for Wayne Lowrance. As a slight favorite. Not only to be the best finisher, but to win the tourney.
Sebastian Boehme (2010-12-07 20:10:10)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
Seriously do not underestimate Ruben Comes. Although he is still quite new to correspondence chess, I really think he has chances too to win this event.
Cheers,
Sebi
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.
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.
Wayne Lowrance (2010-12-10 04:17:30)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?
(1) The winner of KO matches is the highest TER in the event of 4-4 from all draws
(2) The winner of KO match is the lower TER entry if games are 4-4 but with wins/loss involved.
(3) If the score is 4-4 with all draws in the KO & RR match then highest TER player wins.
(4) If the score is 4-4 with win/loss then the lower TER player wins.
MY understanding is this correct. Is it more undertandable ? to me it is
Wayne
Garvin Gray (2010-12-11 10:01:52)
Eros Riccio vs Eros Riccio in WCH 5 ?
I thought my explanation was a good summary.
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.
Hannes Rada (2010-12-15 21:56:00)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Hi Thibault,
Thank you for the examples.
I do not agree with your position against Peter Schuster. Almost every engine is now playing Qe2 i.o. Tb1 ?
So the engines now 'understand' this position a little bit.
Your position against Wolfgang Utesch is a classical fortress and indeed a bit funny. Here all engines show +5 and Rybka even +6 .... :-)
The 'tragedy' here is not the final position, but the fact the engines would go for such a position in their analysis, as it seems to be a clear win for white. I would file this under typical missing endgame understanding.
I.e. Rybka still does not understand wrong bishop endgames....
Scott Nichols (2010-12-15 23:20:40)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Hi Thib. This is one of the main games I had in mind when I responded to your quote.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__BLITZ_SILVER__000019
Or Game #40749
After 50. ...Be2 Rybka could only think of lines keeping the King close to the g4 pawn. Try it yourself anybody, the engine just didn't get it. It was a blitz game, but even at that time control I could see that my black Bishop could guard against the pawn advance from afar. So the winning strategy was to march the King to the other side of the board and escort the a-pawn to the queening square. This idea obviously was far beyond the engines horizon. After that game, my respect for Rybka's endgame play went down considerably.
Philip Roe (2010-12-16 03:31:35)
Chess positions too complex for engines
This ending is taken from Nunn's Chess Endings (Om. Garcia-Otero,Cuba 2002).
ChessPosition (see diagram)
White, to play, can force a Queen and Pawns ending that would be a long slow win, but he can also make a very profound triangulation that leads much more forcefully to the win. Nunn was very impressed that White found this at the board.
I would be interested to know how the engines do on this position.
Josef Riha (2010-12-16 09:49:07)
Chess positions too complex for engines
Exactly, don't forget the engines got informations about any given position in the endgame and at some point in the middlegame from the endgame tablebases whether it's a win, draw or lose.
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 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.
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.
Don Groves (2010-12-20 04:03:49)
Server change (19th, december 2010)
When I try to connect to the secure server, I get the following error message:
Secure Connection Failed
An error occurred during a connection to www.ficgs.com.
SSL received a record that exceeded the maximum permissible length.
(Error code: ssl_error_rx_record_too_long)
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
Garvin Gray (2011-01-05 02:13:43)
WBCCC Pairings for Round 1 will be here
Click on this link if you wish to see the pairings in a more user friendly format: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=300666;msg=ReplyPost
No Name Rtg Total Result Name Rtg Total
1 LOWRANCE, Wayne (1) 2488 [0] : RALUNGER, (18) 2122 [0]
2 VYTRON, (19) 2120 [0] : LOBOESTEPARIO, (2) 2438 [0]
3 MOZ, (3) 2345 [0] : DEKA, (20) 2110 [0]
4 PARMET, Daniel (21) 2087 [0] : BOEHME, Sebastian (4) 2327 [0]
5 NATIONAL12, (5) 2290 [0] : MARRIOTT, Peter (22) 2079 [0]
6 SCHACHMATT, (23) 2063 [0] : OMPRAKASH, (6) 2285 [0]
7 ELDRIDGE, Mark (7) 2271 [0] : WEIRWINDLE111, (24) 2050 [0]
8 STEPHANIE, (25) 2000 [0] : CĶMES, Rubén (8) 2260 [0]
9 BALABACHI, (9) 2257 [0] : JITAN, (26) 1900 [0]
10 NATMAKU, (27) 1900 [0] : CUMNORCHESSCLUB, (10) 2246 [0]
11 KEOKI010, (11) 2209 [0] : TOMSKI1981, (28) 1900 [0]
12 WIGHT054, (29) 1855 [0] : SEKOS, (12) 2200 [0]
13 NICHOLS, Scott (13) 2199 [0] : INDRAJIT_SG, (30) 1800 [0]
14 DONKASAND, (31) [0] : EVANS, David (14) 2197 [0]
15 PPIPPER, (15) 2160 [0] : FULCRUM2000, (32) [0]
16 MARGE, Anne (33) [0] : SCHACHPROFI, (16) 2150 [0]
17 NOOKASH, Kamesh (17) 2147 [0] : THEHUG, (34) [0]
No Name Rtg Total Result Name Rtg Total
1 DEKA, (20) 2110 [0] : LOWRANCE, Wayne (1) 2488 [0]
2 LOBOESTEPARIO, (2) 2438 [0] : PARMET, Daniel (21) 2087 [0]
3 RALUNGER, (18) 2122 [0] : MOZ, (3) 2345 [0]
4 BOEHME, Sebastian (4) 2327 [0] : VYTRON, (19) 2120 [0]
5 WEIRWINDLE111, (24) 2050 [0] : NATIONAL12, (5) 2290 [0]
6 OMPRAKASH, (6) 2285 [0] : STEPHANIE, (25) 2000 [0]
7 MARRIOTT, Peter (22) 2079 [0] : ELDRIDGE, Mark (7) 2271 [0]
8 CĶMES, Rubén (8) 2260 [0] : SCHACHMATT, (23) 2063 [0]
9 TOMSKI1981, (28) 1900 [0] : BALABACHI, (9) 2257 [0]
10 CUMNORCHESSCLUB, (10) 2246 [0] : WIGHT054, (29) 1855 [0]
11 JITAN, (26) 1900 [0] : KEOKI010, (11) 2209 [0]
12 SEKOS, (12) 2200 [0] : NATMAKU, (27) 1900 [0]
13 FULCRUM2000, (32) [0] : NICHOLS, Scott (13) 2199 [0]
14 EVANS, David (14) 2197 [0] : MARGE, Anne (33) [0]
15 THEHUG, (34) [0] : PPIPPER, (15) 2160 [0]
16 SCHACHPROFI, (16) 2150 [0] : DONKASAND, (31) [0]
17 INDRAJIT_SG, (30) 1800 [0] : NOOKASH, Kamesh (17) 2147 [0]
Paul Campanella (2011-01-12 23:37:37)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ
It is my opinion that Edward could have easily held his championship title if he strictly played for a draw instead of trying to win any of the games.
Edward Kotlyanskiy (2011-01-13 01:29:48)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ
I'd like to congratulate Eros on a very well played match. He had a very good match strategy coming into our games where he would try to put as much pressure on me as possible and hope for me to make a mistake. And it worked! A few mental slips on my part and before I knew it, I was lost. Just to re-emphasize what everyone already knows: Eros is undoubtedly one of the best corr players in the world. He deserved to win the championship. I thank him for making the games exciting, although maybe more for him than me :), and I look forward to playing with him again in the future.
Vjacheslav Perevozchikov (2011-01-13 05:08:59)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ
Hi! Thank you both for the great match. Congratulations to the winner!!!
I have a question. What happened in the only game that not finished in a draw?
24... Rxc2!? wasn't a better choice for black? Or I missed something?
Daniel Parmet (2011-01-14 08:01:36)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ
in the case of Riccio winning the challenger match shouldn't the previous Champ get a rematch just so there is a 5th title bout?
Sebastian Boehme (2011-01-14 08:35:58)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ
The most things having been said already, I would like to add a quote, which originally was about Bobby Fischer.
"Against Eros Riccio it does not matter if you win or lose. It matters whether you can survive."
Congrats Eros once again! Well done!
Cheers,
Sebi
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-15 00:34:20)
Eros Riccio is the new FICGS chess champ
Should be great, unfortunately things do not work that way (at least the current rules)... anyway Eros deserves those 6-8 months of "rest", at least to win his future matches in the 7th & 8th cycles :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-18 15:24:39)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn
Advanced chess "centaur" players should be interested by the following:
A "super" tournament for computers, named TCEC, just started. Premier Division finals started with the participation of the world's top engines.
Tournament format: double round robin
The participants:
1 Houdini 1.5
2 Rybka 4.0
3 Shredder 12.0
4 Stockfish 2.0.1
5 Naum 4.2
6 Ivanhoe B47cB
7 Hiarcs 13.2
8 Critter 0.9
I don't know much on this tournament, actually it may be a CCRL/SSDF system-like but as a tournament (and without rating list?), anyway thus it was able to reach the chess news in Chessdom & Susan Polgar blogspot.
The point is that the supposed "possible" Rybka-clones Ivanhoe & Houdini (both based on Ippolit, just like Firebird) entered the race... and Houdini is leading already, ahead of Rybka.
It is announced that Rybka 4 is playing, does anyone know who's behind this version of Rybka and what is the hardware? Does Vasik Rajlich know about that?
http://susanpolgar.blogspot.com/2011/01/houdini-15-leads-tcec-computer-super.html
http://www.chessdom.com/news-2011/computer-chess-live-2011
http://www.tcec-chess.org/
Jimmy Huggins (2011-01-18 21:11:52)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
With less than 3 hours to go for the WBCCC Round 1 to begin. I will help everyone out here to follow what games they want to follow. Here are all the links for games.
B=Board, this is so you know who is at the top table and so on.
()=There real name on here if its needed.
B1-Wayne Lowerance vs ralunger(Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20187
B2-Uly(Vytron) vs Loboestepario(Gino Figlio)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20188
B3-Moz vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20191
B4-parmetd (Daniel Parmet) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20192
B5-National12 vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20193
B6-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20194
B7-Mark Eldridge vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20195
B8-stepanie vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20196
B9-Balabachi vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20197
B10-Natmaku vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E. Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20198
B11-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs Tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20199
B12-CumnorChessClub(Kevin E.Plant) vs wight054
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20215
B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20201
B14-donkasand vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20202
B15-ppipper vs Fulcrm2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20203
B16-Anne-Marge vs SchachProfi (Alex)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20204
B17-Kamesh(Kamesh Nookala) vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20225
Everyone plays 2 games in our Swiss style format per round. This is everyone's 2nd game.
B1-deka vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20206
B2-Loboestepario(Gino Figilo) vs parmetd(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20207
B3-ralunger(Ramil Germanes) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20208
B4-Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20209
B5-Weirwindle vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20210
B6-Omprakash vs stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20211
B7-SpiderG(Peter Marriott) vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20212
B8-Ruben Comes vs Schachmatt(Matthew O'Berin)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213
B9-Tomski1981 vs Balabachi
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20214
B10-CumnorChessClub(Kevin E.Plant) vs wight054
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20215
B11-jatin vs keoki010(George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20217
B12-Sekos vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20219
B13-Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20220
B14-David Evans vs Anne-Marge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20221
B15-TheHug(Jimmy Huggins) vs ppipper
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20222
B16-SchachProfi (Alex) vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20223
B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh(Kamesh Nookala)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20224
This should make it easier for everyone to follow the games. Please leave comments for the players. They will would very much like it. I will try to update the forum as games go on and finish.
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)
Jimmy Huggins (2011-01-18 21:32:48)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
The undertaking of the software was very good! I was ever impressive with not only the Xxcfplay client, but the software being used to post all the moves to the Rybka Forum. Once a move is made it makes it to the threads you see above in just about a minute or less. Considering the time they had I gave them a A++.
Scott Nichols (2011-01-18 22:29:17)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
I second that Jimmy, and an A++ for you as well!
Garvin Gray (2011-01-19 13:41:10)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
And a F for me right lol
Scott Nichols (2011-01-19 14:53:35)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
Sorry Garvin, A++ for you also. I hope you survived the flood, :)
Jimmy Huggins (2011-01-19 18:24:52)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
No Gray not an F for you. You get an A++ as well. You helped in many ways. And you will play a critical round in the games as the reach toward the end.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-22 20:49:23)
Houdini 1.5 leads TCEC comp. chess tourn
Ah, maybe it was finished already... So Houdini wins with no loss! Bad score for Hiarcs 13.2 & Naum 4.2 :/ Dunno what can be concluded from all this, we all knew that Rybka & Houdini are the best engines nowadays.
N Engine Pts SB
1 Houdini 1.5 24.0 147.00 1= == == == 11 1= 1=
2 Rybka 4.0 23.0 128.00 0= 0= =1 11 10 1= =1
3 Stockfish 2.0.1 20.0 128.00 == 1= 0= =0 == 11 =1
4 Ivanhoe B47cB 17.0 115.00 == =0 1= =0 =1 01 ==
5 Critter 0.9 17.0 114.50 == 00 =1 =1 == 01 ==
6 Shredder 12.0 12.0 91.50 00 01 == =0 == == ==
7 Naum 4.2 12.0 80.50 0= 0= 00 10 10 == ==
8 Hiarcs 13.2 11.0 91.50 0= =0 =0 == == == ==
Scott Nichols (2011-01-23 11:21:15)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
Sad to say, Jimmy's one core computer gave out. He MAY have to forfeit first and maybe second round games before he gets back up. Meanwhile I will try to keep players up to date on FICGS side.
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.
Gregory Kohut (2011-01-26 20:25:33)
Super Bowl
I think the Steelers will win the Super Bowl. Go Steelers! Beat the Packers!
Jimmy Huggins (2011-01-29 07:15:06)
Following the WBCCC games Round 1
I have been following the games for a couple of days now. I will get my new computer next week. I will make an update then.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:
- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)
Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)
- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))
The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.
- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?
I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.
- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?
Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.
- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)
It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.
- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!
Welcome, and thanks ;-)
_________
It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.
Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)
Kamesh Nookala (2011-02-01 09:24:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Watch your back °!°
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-02 19:50:00)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules
Hi all, it was a long time there wasn't any update in rating rules.
First of all, as the number of results at Poker Holdem is quite high, I feel that a change should be tried so that ratings move less fast.
Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((38 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a loss : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
As for Big Chess, the ratings deflate because there isn't the same rule than in Poker or Advanced Chess, this is now fixed :
If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2000, his new rating his :
New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20
Otherwise :
New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20
This rule may look strange from a mathematical point of view, but combined to the other rules that provoke deflation, it gives really good results IMHO. Let's see how it works here.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-02-12 04:18:32)
WBCCC Round 1 Update
This is the first update for the WBCCC, I guess some of you have been following some of the games there. There have been a lot of interesting games and some surprises a lot the way. As I'm reporting on the FICGS forum I will make most of this about the FICGS side. Here are some results so far and starting at the top boards.
B2 Uly(Vytron) vs Gino Figlio- Gino does a good job of defending a ..2.e6 line of the Sicilian. And both players agree to a draw after 34 moves.
B4 Daniel Parmet vs Sebastian Boehme- This was a Poison Pawn line of the Sicilian. The game ended before it even got out of book. A short draw, I think both people agreed that it was a good result for each player.
B6- Matt O'Brein vs Omprakash- A surprise if only for how short the game was. Matt shows his tactual muscles when his higher rated opponent much of had and oversight in this defense. As 23.g6! h6 24.Bxh6! and it looks like black has burned his bridges in this game.
B8-Stephanie vs Ruben Comes- This maybe the biggest surprise in round at least in terms of the bigger name on the FICGS side. Stephanie what looks to be a prefect opening all of the B90 lines and everyone agrees 32.Bc3! to be a new novelty and a very good one at that. Stephanie went on to grind Ruben down to a lost endgame. I very interesting game that has be to be seen to believe, I guess this going to show, that not all B90 lines lend to draws.
B13-Scott Nichols vs indrajit_sg- This was a long fought draw. When looking at the game early I thought white may have some chance to take advantage of his open g-file. But not a lot materialize later in the endgame(form the engines point of view).
B14-donkasand vs David Evans- David enter into dangerous territory with this B90 line. At move 19 he played ..Rb8 which looks to be a move to get out of book, because the other moves didn't look so good. Credit to David for finding a draw line in this game. Its another game with a look.
Kamesh Nookala vs Jimmy Huggins- What can I say I played an experimental opening and it backfired :) A well played game by Kamesh. Thanks for the chance to have a good fight with you.
Now on the 2nd set of games(Each player has 2 games in each round)
B3 Ramil Germanes vs Moz- Ramil here played a safe line in the B90 form the white side. So this looked like and easy draw.
B4 Sebastian Boehme vs Uly(Vytron)- Vytron plays and interesting side line of the Crao-Kann and play was very shape, but I got the feeling black played to ambitiously and had the worse of the position. He found a good defensive sacrifice and the good was hold to a draw. I think Sebi had winning chances, but I will have to look over the game to come up with an idea on that one. Anyway a great game to look over.
Ruben Comes vs Matthew O'Berin- Maybe the sharpest and most ambitious game in round 1. This goes in the the B97 lines, but Ruben goes for the Qf3 side line and produces a complex position after Rd3. I love this game so much I want to post the link again for everyone to please watch this game and post a comment about it.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=20213
B13 Fulcrum2000 vs Scott Nichols- Scott tries his luck to be ambitious and backfires with his Bh4 idea. Even when looking at the game. I was thinking it to be a good idea, but as it turns out. It goes as just losing a tempo. I thought this was one of the more instructive games of the round. I liked the way white played the endgame.
And the last result I have for the round for the FICGS players is
B17-indrajit_sg vs Kamesh Nookala- This was an interesting draw were white plays and early sideline in the Sicilian that tends to be drawish unless black forces the play. Another well played game by both sides.
I just want to say there are a lot of games one should look at. As more results come in on the FICGS side I will posted. In my opinion one should follow Wayne's games I have enjoyed his play so far. He had to comeback some in his wild game with black vs deka, but I get the feeling this game will ended in a draw. I would also follow the underrated Matt O'Berin in games to come. He has proven to be a great player so far.
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.
Scott Nichols (2011-02-17 19:06:53)
Silver chess games, W/B balance
I think the 2nd option would give Black some advantage in points after a few games since so many games are draws. It would definitely make White push hard for a win! Either way, I like it. :)
Garvin Gray (2011-02-24 03:08:56)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I have already offered mine, have them play in groups by themselves and the winner qualifies as normal by winning their group.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-26 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?
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-02-27 22:46:42)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
??! but this way 2000-2100 rated players have much more chances to win 1st stage groups and to play 6 strong opponents the stage after instead of only 1 in these groups... well, it looks like a bit a contradiction to me to agree what Garvin says and to say this, or maybe I did not understand something again. Let's see what Garvin & others will say.
Garvin Gray (2011-03-02 15:29:10)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Ok, I have attempted to reply to some of this, but I keep losing the plot of what I am saying. Perhaps it is just that there are too many intertwined topics that it is all too much.
Can someone divide up the topics a bit so I can reply with more clarity?
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)...
Jimmy Huggins (2011-03-05 06:14:08)
Poll for best game of round 1
If you have been following some of the games I would like for you to cast a vote for the best game of Round 1. Look here for the poll and read the directions because I was unable to put up all the games for vote.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21096
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 (2011-03-06 08:56:33)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Aren't having players segregated from the rest being elitist. Tano, you have voted for proposals that are surely elitist ie allowing players to avoid the general population and giving them increased chances to qualify.
If you do not believe in elitism then I would have thought you were would be arguing that all players from all ratings should start from round one, including the 2300+ players.
Mariusz Maciej Broniek (2011-03-06 08:56:45)
Strange game
Hi;0)
maybe I am wrong in my opinion, but I think, that playing chess is for fun! I have a 7yo son, and he traing hard to learn playing chess. In lose position he play move by move and what is bad in that situation? It is only a hobby, its only for fun.. Not for rating, not for 1,0,=. All in FICGS used computers to play, he used a young brain and learn lose too. It is very important in my opinion. I have few games in the same sytuation - I am winner - but I have a time and... dont wont to die too ;0)) BECAUSE IT IS ALL ONLY FOR FUN.
Kind regards to you Alexander
Mariusz
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-07 21:45:17)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
Well, I see that the idea of "equal chances for everyone" is still in the debate, that's quite strange as I thought it was obvious & accepted that such a thing cannot exist in correspondence chess.
No correspondence chess championship format can give equal chances to everyone because there is no time for this, and to try to do it only gives less chances to the best player to win it.
The way IECG & ICCF do it has probably as many advantages & inconvenients as we do it at FICGS but at the end the efficiency is quite similar to find as accurately as possible the best player among the highest rated ones IMO & everyone have NOT equal chances (either you have to play a few rounds more or there is a TER rule or whatever).
I'm not saying that one format is better than others, some will like the FICGS format, some will prefer other formats, that's all IMO. Do not think that the WBCCC format solves all problems, it tries to avoid the time problem but the number of players is very limited in the running edition.
Finally, why to play another ICCF/IECG championship here?
I think that there is no argument that can justify that all players (including the 8 players of the knockout after all) should play in regular groups, as well as no argument can justify the opposite. It was just a choice to make it different and somewhat looking like the old FIDE championship.
That's why choices 2) & 4) are really best to me. 2) may be better because the range 2100-2400~ may be too large for M groups, but another solution may be to build M (2250-2400)& N (2100-2250) groups like it was done in one WCH cycle, where the number of qualified players were different. Actually the idea of class groups with different numbers of qualified players is really interesting but of course, the chances are not the same for everyone once again.
Whatever the choice, surely it will not be ok for some players for any reason, but I'm now quite sure that a change should be done.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-10 02:45:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I'm not clear enough, as too often :/
Let's say that there are 33 players over 2150 in the waiting list. 8 will play the knockout, 7 (over 2300) will play the M group and 18 will play in two N groups of 9 players. From the M group, 2 will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 will play round 2. From the N groups, 1 from each one will qualify for the round-robin final (round 3), and 4 from each one will play round 2. So from these 33 players, 12 will play in the round-robin groups stage 2.
Maybe this formulation (that should be included into the wch rules) will be clearer:
"Players with a rating superior or equal to 2300 will play 1st stage in class M groups if possible. From these groups the two players obtaining the best score will qualify for the round-robin final stage 3, the player obtaining the lowest score will be eliminated, the others will play stage 2.
Other players with a rating superior or equal to 2150 will play 1st stage in class N groups if possible. From these groups the winner will qualify for the round-robin final, at most half the players from these groups will qualify for round 2."
Garvin Gray (2011-03-10 02:46:05)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
I think I understand the changes Daniel, so lets see how this goes.
The top eight rated players who have to nominate to play in this section participate in knockout matches (that is still the same).
Stage 1.
All players rated above 2150+ are placed in their own round robin groups, these groups are called Group M and Group N.
For players in the M group, the top two point scorers progress through to the round robin final.
The lowest point scorer from these groups is eliminated.
Those who finish from 3rd to second last just move to stage 2.
For players in the N group, only the winner qualifies for the round robin final and at most half the players from this group will qualify for stage 2, the others are eliminated.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-10 03:15:04)
FICGS chess World Championship #9
btw your assumption that all the 1st seeds get through is wrong. In fact, I didn't get through on my last go around because all the 1800s played drawing lines as white to try to make as sterile a position as possible. This of course forced to play for a win from a drawn position which exactly as you expect - lost. These new proposed changes are in my opinion extremely silly and biased towards people in certain rating brackets. Therefore, I can't participate until I'm on the better half of the bias 2150+
Jimmy Huggins (2011-03-11 21:49:16)
WBCCC Round 2 Pairings
Time has finally come for Round 2 to come and the long a waited pairings are out. Just for notes B=Board #
B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
B2-Moz vs Sekos
B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
B6-ppipper vs jitan
B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
B9-Balabachi vs Sebastian Boehme
B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
2nd game of Round 2
B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
B5-David Evans vs National12
B6-Sekos vs ppipper
B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi
B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd (Daniel Parmet)
B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
I will post links in the next post. I still have to move the game threads over to the WBCCC Forum. Good Luck to everyone in Round 2! :)
Jimmy Huggins (2011-03-12 06:13:27)
WBCCC Round 2 Pairings
Oh ok here are the links to the games threads for Round 2!
B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21163
B2-Moz vs Sekos
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21164
B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21165
B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21166
B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21167
B6-ppipper vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21168
B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21169
B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21170
B9-Balabachi vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21171
B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21172
B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21173
B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21174
B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21175
B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21176
B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21177
B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21178
2nd set of Games
B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21180
B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21181
B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21182
B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21183
B5-David Evans vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21184
B6-Sekos vs ppipper
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21185
B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21186
B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21187
B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21188
B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21189
B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21190
B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21191
B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21193
B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21194
B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd
(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21195
B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21196
Jimmy Huggins (2011-03-14 17:39:50)
WBCCC Round 2 to be a short delay
I'm sorry about this, but the tournament will be delayed by a day or 2, because of a withdrawal at the top of the pairings. If it was a lower point group, we could have probably winged it. For more details players please read this.
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21227
Me and Garvin will work hard to get this fixed as soon as possible, follow this thread or here and I will get it corrected. When we have things fixed pairings wise I will post ASAP.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-15 14:08:19)
ChessVibes openings (get 10 issues free)
For correspondence chess fans who like to follow the openings theory, I just received an interesting offer from ChessVibes that I copy/paste here:
__________
Dear correspondence chess lovers,
First, we'd like to thank the administrator of this forum for giving us the opportunity to showcase our product which is especially interesting for this audience, we think. So, here we go:
Subscribe to ChessVibes Openings and get ten issues for free!
Which openings are hot in top level chess? Which are not? Receive the latest opening novelties right in your mailbox with ChessVibes Openings, a weekly PDF magazine (+ PGN!) covering the latest openings news, co-authored by International Masters Merijn van Delft and Robert Ris and published by ChessVibes since January 2009. If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!
What is it?
Every issue consists of a PDF Magazine and the accompanying PGN file. The PDF consists of four pages (A4 size) with the following contents:
- Whats hot? A round-up of this weeks important opening developments, with statistics about the frequence and score of the weeks most important opening novelty (page 1)
- Whats not? Which openings are not recommended at the moment, according to the top players? And why not? (page 1)
Game of the week Each week youll find the theoretically most important game analysed by our two IMs, with a detailed survey of the opening phase (page 2).
- This weeks harvest Four more new important opening ideas from this week (page 3) revealed and described with explanation of the opening and early middlegame (page 3).
- Its Your Move An interactive element: every week two exercises, of which the solutions/explanations will follow one week later. This will improve your understanding of certain opening, middlegame or even endgame themes even further.
Which opening variations have been discussed so far?
You can download an index in PDF here.
http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/cvo/CVO_index_114.pdf
More info & subscribe: You can find more information about ChessVibes Openings, and subscribe, at:
http://www.chessvibes.com/openings/
By subscribing you would join several GMs and IMs, who have responded very positively to our relatively new chess magazine!
Best regards,
Peter Doggers
Editor-in-chief,
ChessVibes
P.S.
If you subscribe and mention 'ficgs' in an email to us at info {at} chessvibes.com, you'll receive the last ten issues for free!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-03-24 15:36:57)
5th Go WCH, analysis by SC. von Erichsen
Svante Carl von Erichsen is FICGS Go champion... for the 5th time! After his win in the match that opposed him to Olivier Drouot, here are his analysis on the games:
_______________________
- Congratulations for this 5th win in the FICGS Go championship! By seeing the score you give less and less chances to your opponents who seem stronger each time though... Several games may look quite mysterious to weaker players. What happened during these games?
- Svante Carl von Erichsen:
Hi!
I do not have the impression that my opponents have less and less
chances. I also make many mistakes, and was in a clearly bad position
in at least one game. Olivier made many very unusual moves in the
opening, which were difficult to handle in a calm manner.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47578
In game 3 (47578), this is apparent at move 18. White has gone for a
very centre-oriented game, while Black has made more direct profit.
It is difficult to say who got the better deal. Move 18 itself is
very unusual, and I am not sure whether the result was satisfactory
for me. I think that moves 41 and 43 were important, as stabilizing
the group in the centre takes priority when the centre is dominated by
White like this. At move 53, it is clear that Black needs to stabilize
the top group, but D18 seems more important in retrospect. Move 62 is
a bit odd---I think that living with S16 instead would be better. I
think that Black got a territorial advantage here. Since White got
additional central strength, Black turned to make his central group
safe again, which should be enough to win now. White 94 tries to
shake up things again, but getting separated on the lower side makes
it very hard for him.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47580
In game 5 (47580), Olivier chose a very unusual move again at move 8.
I think that the outcome until move 17 favours Black, however. At
move 36, it looks like Black will have to live in the corner, but the
white enclosure does have its holes. Alas, White's response to the
forcing move at P10 was a severe blunder, as Black can take back the
right side. Move 55 was big, but I had not anticipated that the fight
after move 56 would be so hard for me. I think that after move 93,
White put too much emphasis on hollowing out what once seemed like
prospective black territory. The ponnuki in the centre was worth much
more than what White made on the second line. With that strength,
reducing the white framework on the left was no question. I think
that White then tried too hard in the centre.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47576
Game 1 (47576) was characterized by a big fight starting from the
joseki in the lower right corner. I guess that a stronger player
could point out several mistakes by both sides. It resulted in a big
exchange, where quite some aji remained in both positions. Move 90 is
an unusual idea, it would be more normal to extend on the side. 91
and 95 were intended as forcing moves to give some support to the top
side. I think that Black has good prospects after move 99 and
especially after 113. White started an interesting invasion on the
left then, which was however stopped by the blunder at 138.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47579
Game 4 (47579) again featured some unusual moves in the opening,
namely moves 7 and 9. I think that immediately plunging through at 10
was not good. It was quite difficult for me to keep territorial
balance afterwards. I think that my invasion at the top was
premature, but it seemed like I could not keep up without it. The
attack at L13 was severe. I got lucky that Black kept back a bit, so
that I could get the cut at E7, which was more important than the six
stones around N13. It would have been possible to save them at move
98, but at the cost of letting Black break through L10. Sacrificing
them allowed me to cement the centre to put me comfortably ahead. L9
was then the start of a desperate attempt to reduce the centre. I was
quite sure that I could capture it, even though simply connecting
would most likely have been enough. I then made a big blunder again
with move 130 (I had to double hane), allowing a game-deciding ko.
Black had a lot of threats against the lower right corner, and I think
that this exchange would have put him ahead. However, he thought he
had an internal threat at D10, which I think was not one, as there was
no additional eye in the centre yet.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=47577
In game 2 (47577), he got me in the opening with another of his
experiments (move 7). I think that I could have been satisfied if I
simply played the keima to P2 at move 14. However, I activated the
central stone instead, which led to Black getting solid positions on
both sides, while I lived small in the corner and struggled in the
centre. I then succeeded in making him overconcentrated on the lower
side, but at the expense of a quite large corner and not making many
points myself. Move 80 tries to stir things up more. I think that if
Black had secured O13 with move 97, the game would have been over.
However, things only began to look good for White after move 127,
which had to be played at R8 (it is sente against the middle group
then, so Black can live with S5). It is still not over, however, as
White has two weak groups to take care of. The lower side group can
live locally with a ko at G1, but the other group has to struggle---it
would be nice to find a clean sacrifice plan here, because it is hard
for the two groups not to compete for eye space. This was the last
game to end, and my opponent seems to have chosen to resign all when
he did not see a way to win the overall match anymore.
All in all, these were very interesting games where I think I learnt a
lot. I wish to thank my opponent, who played very well.
Thanks!
Svante
Don Groves (2011-03-28 01:43:21)
FICGS Quote file
Similar to this one by the creator of Dilbert, Scott Adams: "Creativity is allowing yourself to make mistakes; art is knowing which ones to keep."
Daniel Parmet (2011-04-04 07:33:36)
Conditional moves
if I may play devil's advocate... I believe it is precisely BECAUSE conditional moves are more fair that is why players want them. Now when a person is low on time or trying to extend the game into the next rating period they purposefully wait until the BEST hour in which to make a move to clip the most time off their opponent's clock. If conditional moves were in place, a person could sleep knowing that their forced response is already in the system for their sneaky opponent that just wants to flag them.
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
Kevin D. Plant (2011-04-20 12:18:31)
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041
Why does it show the following
FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_M__000041
Leaders : George Clement Mark Eldridge
who have 2/4 and I have 2.5/4
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.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 11:23:50)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
Hello everyone! Its been a while since the last time I have updated. I would like to talk about recent happening. Then I will give an update on the games for this round.
I have had some talks with a few players. And I would like to announce that starting next year there will be more prizes. Besides the money prize next year. I haven't decide yet how many of these I will have yet. And its possible there could be more ideas to come by. Please also know that there will be money prizes still this is just something on also to add to the interests.
1.Subscriptions to annotated games. For example Chess Today, Chessvibes, chesspublishing.com and Opening Master. There can be others, these are just examples. If you have other good ideas here please post. Most likely this will be a combined prize here.
2.Rental time on the new Rybka Cluster- Not sure how exactly this one would work. It could be a lot different in a years time for the Rybka Cluster. But I think this would have some interests.
3.Hardware- Again not sure how I would do this. But I would probably have it as a middle to high end setup for a prize. Hardware is always a every changing process its hard to know what is good at that time.
Any other suggests are welcome. Probably the best realistic prize is the first one. If I have multiple prizes like this. The way it would probably play out is like a lottery system. Start with the winner and work your way down. On what they want and go 2nd, 3rd etc...
The last prize to talk about.(And maybe the best) I have had talks with the people of chesspublishing.com and next year. Whatever game is voted for "best game of the round". Will have there game analyzed, by one of the titled players on that site and have the game published. I will try and have it open to everyone that follows the games for the WBCCC.
The next thing of interest for next year. Is that we will have a conditional move system in place. It was thought in a blitz setting to be a great asset to have. For example if your opponent is in a different time zone than you and the next move to you would be a force move. It would be nice to have this option to make the forced play. Without having to say up late at night to make this obvious move. This is all the new stuff. Round 2 Update to come.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 14:45:26)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
The last round was very exciting! And this round has had some great games as well. To speak of there is just 4 games left. Here is the report of the most important games this round.
Starting at the top boards. We have have...
B1-Loboestepario (Gino Figilo) vs CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21163-
This game followed a Catalan. Gino makes ambitious choice to go with 5.Nbd2! I gave this move a ! Not because of its theoretical standing. But because it will lead to a position were white will give up a whole pawn for rapid development. Never the less, black is equal to the task and managers to hold on to the pawn for most of the game and keep the game balanced. With my human eyes, I thought for sure white had an advantage! After move 20.Be4, It looks like white has 2 racking bishops. While black has one black locked in! But in depth analysis shows, that black can hold on. And shows great defensive technique. Down the stretch. Well played by Gino and Kevin. On of my favorite games to follow.
B3-Mark Eldridge vs David Evans
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21165-
David has gotten tested in both his black games in this tournament. And this game was no different. We had another B90 line in this game. And ...8.h5 was used. This is becoming a common line in this tournament. Mark's treatment on the white side was great! I think his future opponents will think twice before trying this line again. At move 22, the game reaches the sharpest point. After move 22.fxe5! I thought that Mark had a chance vs David. But David founds some good moves to exchanges pieces and hold for a draw. The best of which was the combo of ...33.Rf3 and ...36.Rxg3! This was a nice find by him. Great job to David and Mark! I look forward to seeing both these players again.
B4-Stephanie vs Fulcrum2000
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21166-
I would normally just post FICGS member games here. But this maybe one of the top 2 or 3 most important games of this round. In what turns out to be the most exciting game of the round IMO. White has shown that they are quite good in the opening phase. At move 18 they choose 18.b3 which was suggested as being the novelty move. White gets a very strong game and after a king tour to capture the pawn. It looked like a win for sure!, but it seems a mistake was made at move 38. Instead of 38.Qc1!? the move 38.Qe8! seems to be a near winner. I thoughts on why this move was missed is because, White was in time trouble in both games. I have to believe this was a favor. As we speak Stephanie is close to defeat in the other game that I will talk about shortly. I would watch her for the reminded of the tournament. I think they will learn form this experience and be even stronger going future. Well done by both players.
B5-NATIONAL12 vs Kamesh
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21167
Two of my good friends battling here. This was a B90 battle. The novelty move was the straight forward looking 27.h4, but after some exchanges. White has to settled for equality. A good match to follow, the one other note made was this was a line pioneered by Eros Riccio.
B7-Wayne Lowrance vs tomski1981
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21169-
Wayne plays a good line vs the french vs tomski. In fact by the database expert, it was in a 100% win line!! But after the queens come off the board. It burns out to a quiet draw. Wayne has had good opening results, but has yet to get in the winners column. I have faith that Wayne will win a game very soon. Good game to both in this one.
B8-Uly vs indrajit_sg
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21170-
This was a nice game to follow. A french defense was chosen. The point in which it gets interest is the choice to play 19.bxc3!? Which leads to 21.Nh6+!? I loves this sires of moves! 27.Rh3! was also a good move here. But its seems black has just enough resources to hold the balance. ..54.Bxg6! was a good finally touch. Well played by both players.
B9-Balabachi(William Fuller) vs Sebastian Boehme
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21171
What was talked about as a drawish Ruy position. I found to be quite a game with all the early fireworks. I also liked the material imbalance in this game. Sebi has a rep of being very difficult to beat with the black pieces. This helps when you have the Ruy and the Posion pawn line of the Sicilian. As two of your best weapons. ;)
B10-Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein) vs Weirwindle
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21172-
This was an interesting Richter-Rauzer game. 15.Qf4 was the novelty move, Form there it got crazy. 21.Nb3 seems to invite a pawn race. Which in the end white loses. This was a tough game for white. I think he should have been able to hold it. But it was still a good game to follow.
B11-donkasand vs Ruben Comes
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21173
This was a nice positional game by Mike (Donkasand), This was a 6.h3 Sicilian. And we get the usually good defense here. ..7.h5 White gets great positional pressure for the whole game and even gets a pawn, but Ruben wholes for a draw.
B12-natmaku vs ralunger (Ramil Germanes)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21174
This game was a Petroff with 5.Nc3. This kind of move gives white rapid development. Its seems black equalize pretty quickly. And on move 21 a draw was agreed on.
B13-Scott Nichols vs Omprakash
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21175
This was an interesting King's Gambit game. I think Scott didn't study his opponents rep. :) The King's Gambit is Om's specialty. So this was an easy draw for black.
B14-Keoki010 (George Clement) vs deka
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21176-
In this game black returns to his pet line of the Sicilian with 2.a6(Which he played in the last round) I believe this is called the O'Kelly variation. This time around he goes for ..7.Qb6 which looks a little better than ..7.Bb5!? A draw probably should have been possible, but George was able to grid out a win. Well played by both players.
B15-parmetd (Daniel Parmet)vs SpiderG (Peter Marriott)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21177
This was a King Indian by black. And white does a good job of out playing his opponent in this game. Unfortunately it seems Peter has gotten busy in his life. This game was decide by time.
B16-Banned for Life vs TheHug(Jimmy Huggins)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21178
I face off against Alan who has the white pieces. And is consider to be one of the best players when playing 1.b3. It was a difficult game for me as I decide before hand to play a dangerous line. Needless to say I lose this game after a few small mistakes on my part. I am founding that all the players in the WBCCC are good, I maybe better off being a commentator lol, but no one would have that.
This was the first set of games.
Here is the 2nd game of the 2nd round in the next post.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-04-29 18:36:20)
WBCCC-New stuff and Round 2 Update
B1-CumnorChessClub (Kevin E.Plant) vs Moz
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21180
Kevin makes an interesting choice here with 2.a4!? vs the Silicon Defense. Not exactly sure what he wanted out of the opening. I can only guess he wanted to mix it up here. Anyway, black equalizes fairly quickly and is better. But after 18.a5! He finds the best way to equalize and both agree to a draw.
B2-jitan vs Loboestepario (Gino Figilo)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21181-
The somewhat unknown Jitan has had a good tournament. And is given his ICCF SM opponent all he can handle. In a game that is still going. Gino is down a pawn, but it appears to be a draw and I would guess the game is about to finish. This was an interesting approach by Gino who gets in b5 and h5 very early in this game. And Jitan plays the most naturally looking sac. 13.Nbxd5! it looked like for a long time Gino was in trouble, but he has found enough resources IMO. A well played game by both players.
B3-Fulcrum2000 vs Mark Eldridge
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21182
This was a nice French game to watch. The novelty move was ..11.Na5, OTB I would like white in this game and I had a feeling that white possibly could have risked an attack, but this game came down to endgame play and White was able to outplay black in the end.
B4-Kamesh vs Stephanie
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21183-
In my opinion this is the most important game the round and it is reaching its fianlly stages. I believe Stephanie to be one of the top players in this event. She has been doing well, but Kam has played the near perfect opening and got her in trouble. If you remember my previous post you remember I talk about Stephanie was in time trouble. Which has not help the cause. The one move I enjoyed the most so far in this game was 36.Ra5!, this was a nice exchange sac. And its given Kam nice pass pawns on the Queen-side. I would guess this game will be over soon. It has been a nice game to watch.
B5-David Evans vs National12
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21184
A battle of the English Countryman here. :) This was the Open Defense of the Ruy. Form the comments I got, it seems that the opening was played about as perfectly as you can get. David posed some problems to Paul(National12), but it ends in a fairly easy draw. One finally note ..10.d4 IMO is a very difficult move to beat.
B6-ppipper vs jitan
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21168-
This is one of the finally 4 games still playing. What looks like to be a draw here. The white black has been dancing for a few moves now, but blacks back rank is weak. That equals a drawish game. :)
This game started out form B90 and so has a ton of theory.
B7-indrajit_sg vs Wayne Lowrance
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21186
I fairly quiet B90 game. I don't think white got much out of the opening. Well played by Wayne here.
B8-tomski1981 vs Uly
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21187
A battle of good friends here. IMO I thought white played the this Queens pawn opening passively. And so we had an early draw at move 26.
B9-Sebastian Boehme vs Schachmatt (Matt O'Brein)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21188-
This is one of the 4 last games. And I have to say its been a good game. We had an interesting Sicilian position. I had thought black was in trouble. But after he tripled up on the d-file. Then got massive exchanges. He looks like its headed toward a draw.
B10-Weirwindle vs donkasand
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21189-
This was a nice positional Sicilian game. Although it ends in a draw. Its a must see game! Watching the drawing combo at the end is very beautiful. It starts with ..27.e4! and you can watch it form there.
B11-Ruben Comes vs Balabachi(William Fuller)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21190
Ruben opened up this rep with 3.h3!? and we ended up with a closed type of Sicilian. But his opponent stayed strong. Though out the game. Even if it looked like Ruben had some pressure. In the finally position.
B12-ralunger (Ramil Germanes) vs keoki010 (George Clement)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21191-
This game saw the Exchange variation in the Queen's gambit. It has a high rate rate. But to Ramil credit he manage to give George a couple of weak pawns in the endgame, but not enough for any real advantage.
B13-Omparakash vs natmaku
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21193-
I would have hoped for more in this game. As I'm a lover of the 6.Bc4 (Sozin) Sicilian. After 14.e5!? this forces unneeded exchanges. After which, the game looked like a draw. And that is how it ended.
B14-deka vs Scott Nichols
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21194
Usually the Exchange Slav is pretty drawish. And this game was no different. But both players did try to mount some kind of advance. Both had good posts on each others side of the board. But a drawish opening is a drawish opening.
B15-TheHug (Jimmy Huggins) vs parmentd
(Daniel Parmet)
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21195
I tried my luck in an opening that was not something with e4. And it didn't go as well I had hoped, Daniel was able to get a equal position fairly quickly. In my try at making new theory in a very uncommon line vs the King's Indian Defense.
And finally we have this last game.
B16-SpiderG (Peter Marriott) vs Banned for Life
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=21196
This would have promised to be a nice Larson Attack game. By alas Peter timed out in this game as well. I would have loved to seen this attacking game with both sides castled on opposite sides.
Well that would do it for my reports for this round. This was a great round, and the next promises to be great as well. I will post info for the next round after the last game is over with.
Any feedback is welcome!
Jimmy Huggins (2011-05-15 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. :)
Jai Prakash Singh (2011-05-26 21:28:42)
Winning Blitz chess
Hi friends,
GM Igor Smirnov, present ICC Blitz Rating 3091 (best 3212) with ID Charodej shares his blitz chess secrets in video lesson "How to break 3000 blitz rating" free at
http://chessthinkingsystems.blogspot.com/
Eros Riccio (2011-05-28 08:06:21)
I am exhausted
Wayne... don't worry about the match against me, it's not important, and it can be resumed later... now only focus on playing the most important match, which can't be delayed, with life. Fight Wayne, and I am sure you will be the winner.
Eros.
Lalit Kapoor (2011-06-28 10:39:04)
When a player declared winner?
The following tournaments are finished with no unfinished games but site does not declared the winner so far:
1. FICGS__CHESS__RAPID_A__000093 (last game finished on June 16, 2011
2. FICGS__POKER_HOLDEM__TOURNAMENT_C__000049 (last game finished on May 24, 2011.)
Please let the players know about the rules upon this issue.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-01 02:50:07)
When a player declared winner?
Hello Lalit,
Tournament winners/leaders are updated about once every month only.
It should be done today.
Robert Mueller (2011-07-10 07:29:08)
How come ...
... that in the established rating list there are players who have never played a single game here?
E.g. the current #1, Rene-Reiner Starke has not played any games and has no games in progress. He has not even logged on for almost a year.
The same goes for the current #7, Ryszard Kasperek. No games played or in progress and not logged on for almost two years.
Are these players just window-dressing?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-14 23:54:45)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
Hello all,
I'd like your opinion on this special case in a WCH tournament (that did not happen yet, as far as I know). Currently rules do not allow to change anything there but I'm not even sure that something should be changed. Please note that I consider that correspondence chess is not all about chess, so resignations in equal positions are most often wins like other wins.
The case: Player A draws or wins a game in a round-robin WCH tournament, then resigns all his other games in equal positions.
Of course this is not good and maybe unfair for the player who offered/accepted the draw or lost the game against him. If player A resigned some other games in equal positions before, the rules allow the referee to adjudicate the game for the other player, but not here.
While I'm writing these lines, I feel and realize that the referee shouldn't be able to change such a result as the limit is unclear (what about 2 games, 3 games, 4 games or 5 games before those resignations in equal positions), but this may be worth to discuss anyway.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-15 22:39:40)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
The current rules on this point are 11.6 : "Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games in an equal or winning position, without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could lose his other games in the tournament, get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion."
Any suggestion to improve it?
Don Groves (2011-07-16 07:51:33)
Case of resignation in WCH tournament
How about this:
"The game result of a resignation or silent withdrawal in an even or winning position will be adjudicated by the referee. In addition, the player who resigns or withdraws in such positions may face punishment by ... etc."
Garvin Gray (2011-07-23 16:54:42)
E point encouragement
From the my messages page=
Until october 1st 2011, you'll be given 10% E-Points more when buying at least 20 Epoints, 25% E-Points more when buying at least 50 Epoints. It is also possible to win E-Points by becoming an affiliate.
So I understand this correctly. If I buy 50 epoints, I get an extra 12.5 epoints, is that correct?
Don Groves (2011-07-30 11:04:13)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Congratulations Eros! And thanks for your insights concerning correspondence chess.
Do you see any solution to the draw problem? For example, in soccer, the scoring was changed so that a win is worth more than two draws (two points for a win vs. one point for a draw). Could something like this be done in chess? Would it encourage players to take more chances and resist drawing lines?
Don Groves (2011-07-30 23:53:42)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Sorry, I meant to write 3 points for a win!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-07-31 03:12:58)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Hi Don, you mean the draw problem in chess or correspondence chess? Drawish lines by White or/and Black?
Don Groves (2011-07-31 10:29:47)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
I mean the problem of most games being drawn because of ever greater improvement in both hardware and chess engine software. Making wins more valuable could entice players to not settle for draws as easily as they do now.
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
Gino Figlio (2011-08-03 19:58:34)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros,
It looks like we get to play again but this time it will be for a FICGS championship Final. Hopefully I understand the Semifinal tiebreak rules correctly otherwise this would be pretty embarrassing...
Best of luck,
Gino
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-03 20:29:36)
@Gino
Hi Gino, you understand the semi-final tie break rules! Congratulations for another win in the knockout cycle. That will be another interesting match (the 8th FICGS knockout final) to follow! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2011-08-03 20:37:12)
@Don
Well, I guess that players as White do their possible to find bloody lines in order to win, as losing (even in these lines) becomes more and more unlikely due to the recent engines. But I may be wrong, are there obvious counter-examples?
Then should Black be incitated to try harder to win instead of trying to find a quick drawish line?! ... I don't know.
Don Groves (2011-08-04 03:53:21)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
I don't know either, Thib, I was just proposing one possibility.
Rolf Staggat (2011-08-07 17:53:06)
No more draws (over the board)
Why no draws ?
A draw is a normal result.
It would be enough to take the point-rules from football(soccer).
0ne win = three draws.
If you only get 0.33 for a draw, you play with more risk.
Since this rule started in football, every team plays with more risk. Would be the same in chess, I think.
Wayne Lowrance (2011-08-05 23:18:00)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Howdy Eros, my congratulations. I want to get back so badly, but not ready, at least not yet. If and when I make a stab at it, I have a long way to go to get back to the level I am accustomed too,
bfn my friend
Wayne
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.
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 Cozzies
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
Thibault de Vassal (2011-09-19 18:10:05)
Phantom ficgs
Hi Philip,
That's quite strange, this windows should appear in the main FICGS window (the chat bar is below this one).
What navigator do you use (on what computer or mobile)?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-09-26 18:03:55)
Italia & Eros strike at ICCF team champ
Italia made it very well (so Eros Riccio 1st at 1st board, and Mauro Petrolo 2nd at 6th board) against a very strong field in the ICCF european team championship!!
Italia finish second, Slovakia wins...
http://auryn.obolog.com/scacchi-l-italia-guidata-da-riccio-seconda-agli-europei-1282242
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=17521
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=17522
Congrats guys :)
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
John Schutte (2011-09-27 17:49:56)
About lag (timestamp system) for bullet
Thanks Thib,
I lost a game in a winning position due to lag last night. In Africa we sometimes have very bad lag.
Garvin Gray (2011-10-05 14:56:35)
Chess world championship #10
Hello Thib,
Instead of the site showing the list of names in order of entry, would it be possible to show them in rating order?
Or to provide both lists?
Jimmy Huggins (2011-10-05 19:44:45)
Official WBCCC freestyle cup 1 to begin
I'm ready to announce, that the first tournament for the freestyle cup will begin 10 days form today on Oct 15th. The first tournament will be 20m+30s. Since right now we have a large number of American players we will probably start in the early morning in the Americans. I figure this to be the best. So 5-7am Central standard time Or 6-8am Eastern Standard time. I would like to get in at least 3 rounds in on Saturday and see how everyone is. We may do one, but 3 is a safe bet. Then we will finish the tournament next Saturday at the same time. There will be some time between for a break probably 20 to 30 minutes. In the next post I will explain what you need to do to get the the free server and what to do once you get it. A lot of you have a user name and password already (WBCCC) but if you don't I will help you with that. One thing I will say is important is to make sure you leave open a chat window with me. In case you run into any problems. I can answer most problems, if not there will be someone there to help assist me. If I need it.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-04 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.
Des Jefferis (2011-11-12 13:56:54)
World Championship
The whole process seems a bit weird. Why not just put everyone in groups and let the winners go through to the next stage, or maybe the top 2 (or 3 or 4).
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-13 19:52:28)
List ordered by rating
Here is, but as usual the new ratings (january 2012) will be taken in account...
Erwin Thiering 2515
Michael Bergmann 2475
Xavier Pichelin 2454
Thibault de Vassal 2449
Herbert Kruse 2436
Pavel Háse 2332
Ljubomir Tsenkov 2314
Rubén Cķmes 2300
Wayne Lowrance 2266
Dariusz Fraczek 2261
Ramil Germanes 2255
Miroslav Gazi 2255
Alexander Blinchevsky 2253
Michael Sharland 2251
Sergey Kokoryukin 2251
Andrey Razumikhin 2250
Valery Nemchenko 2245
Lubos Fric 2241
Kevin D. Plant 2237
Christoph Schroeder 2236
Viktor Shishkin 2234
Slobodan Ilic 2218
Dmitri Mamrukov 2211
Vitaly Rudenko 2203
Alvin Alcala 2203
Carlos Sánchez 2203
Garvin Gray 2200
Scott Nichols 2189
Peter Unger 2181
Martin Zeman 2181
Christian Koch 2167
Stephen Hamby 2163
John Schutte 2136
David Evans 2132
Nelson Bernal Varela 2130
Darren DiAlfonso 2123
Ardiantez Polkwitzauer 2123
Thomas Dineen 2118
Peter W. Anderson 2112
Steve Lim 2110
Yu Ming Hoe 2100
Arkadiusz Wosch 2093
Djordje Kasabasic 2093
Luis Flores 2084
Daniel Parmet 2083
Lalit Kapoor 2080
Erik L. van Dijk 2074
Bernd Wolf 2072
Jose Lopez 2071
Sergey Uzdin 2064
Rodolfo d Ettorre 2064
Janos Helmer 2063
Om Prakash 2053
Mykola Simashkevitch 2043
Alexis Duenas 2037
Ireneusz Kasznia 2036
Mihail Larsky 2028
Joop Simmelink 2026
Pan Hardfeldt 2020
Henri Muller 2000
Jaroslav senior Pech 2000
Jaroslaw Gibas 2000
Bogoljub Teverovski 1997
Willy De Waele 1996
Fernando Vasquez 1992
Jose Moreira 1979
Andrew Endean 1975
Henri-Louis Muller 1972
Jose Maria Velasco 1972
Jordi Domingo 1969
Janeen Walden 1958
Andy Richard 1956
Roberto Migliorini 1949
Erika van Dijk 1943
Daniel Reboredo 1938
Coco Maceda 1938
Michael Rogers 1933
Aleksandr Aksenov 1927
Mariusz Maciej Broniek 1923
Robert Wilhelm 1901
Kieran Moore 1900
John Dyson 1889
Catalin Nita 1888
Daniel Jabot 1878
Johanes Suhardjo 1875
Mikhail Ruzin 1871
Benjamin Block 1863
Ilmar Ambos 1859
Vyacheslav Shchelykalin 1859
Jan Peter Lommler 1844
Stanislas Gounant 1840
Mircea Hrubaru 1838
Sasha Lipsits 1833
Nilson Pereira 1833
Aleksey Payzansky 1804
Jai Prakash Singh 1800
Fredi Brumec 1800
Gleen Duran 1800
Josef Strohmeier 1800
Ryszard Sternik 1776
Stepan Pech 1767
Dieter Faust 1764
Dmitriy Malish 1760
Dimitrios Ropokis 1743
Hasan Kirali 1715
Eddit Moreul 1700
Behzad Shahmiri 1700
Jaimie Wilson 1684
Dinesh Bhandarkar 1682
Philip Roe 1667
Olli Ylönen 1660
Graham Cridland 1655
Juan Alvar 1653
Jeremy Banta 1644
Luís Gonzaga Grego 1643
Pablo Siciliano 1623
Mariusz Jandula 1600
Sergey Biryukov 1598
Alejandro Canovas 1589
Jimmy Huggins 1577
Matthew O Brien 1575
Pablo Ruano 1565
Khaled Toutaoui 1528
Stanimir Denchev 1505
Leo Malagar 1500
Richard Hendricks 1479
Eric Price 1469
Antonio Pereira 1456
Angelo Piantadosi 1420
Simon Huxtable 1388
Peter Krakovsky 1326
Marc-Antoine Leurette 1243
Jorge Orden 1204
Hana Pechova 1204
Jorma Häkkinen 1192
Des Jefferis 1186
Deon Whittaker 1111
Matej Pech 1074
Jiri Mach 1022
Cédric Cavaillé 1003
Jay Melquiades 0909
Jaroslav Pech 0697
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 (2011-12-04 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 (2011-12-15 21:01:47)
Big chess art :)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=55952&move=301&flip=1
Any other cool drawing?
Don Groves (2011-12-16 05:33:38)
Holiday
I think some portion of a person's unused vacation should carry over into the following year. Accumulated vacation time (>30 days) would help protect against severe illness or accident and would also possibly reduce the practice of taking many short vacations at the end of the year.
Scott Nichols (2011-12-27 19:50:26)
Achieving playing norms
As soon as Class_M__000044 finishes I should get my third FEM norm, :)) I needed 4.5 of 6 and I finished 5.0 of 6. I think it is my style Alvin, I go out on many limbs trying for the win instead of draw. I have went 6/6 in M class, but on the other hand I've went 2/6 and maybe lower. The titles are HARD to get and something to be proud of.
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.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 15:59:17)
5 player double round robins
Off topic response- In my opinion if ratings are based on a decent system, then they do not need to be protected.
If someone loses a person 600 points below them and vice versa wins, they deserve the points result that those results indicate.
The issue, and I know you already know my opinion on this, is players who are put on some arbitary rating ie 1800, when their playing standard could be any number at all.
If unknown players had to earn their rating through a provisional rating system, then there would not have to be as many concerns.
Garvin Gray (2011-12-29 16:11:44)
Different tournament format
Thibault has touched on an issue that I have thought about for a while, so time for a new thread.
Regularly it is discussed about the issues regarding the rating bands, getting to play different players and all sundry similiar issues.
In my opinion I think what this site really needs is more events run under the correspondence style format (not freestyle cup style), where players of significantly different ratings are playing against each other.
Here is what I envisage:
Qualification Stage:
All players of all ratings enter. Groups are divided up similar to Ficgs, except that no players are segregated, so the highest rated player is in Group A, second highest rated player in Group B and so forth.
Even numbers in each group, with a maximum of nine players in a group. There are no substitutes after a group begins.
There are no special groups for the highest rated players or knockout matches. (this is most important to distinguish this event from the WCH)
Final Stage(s):
The winners of each qualification group advance to the final stages, everyone else is eliminated. If there is a tie for first, then all tied players advance. If only one group is required, then this is the final.
If two groups are required, then it would be semi finals and normal round robin pairings would be used and the cycle repeats to get a final group of .... players.
To encourage the highest rated players to enter and to give everyone else a chance to win something substantial, e point entry fee would be 10 epoints.
Steve Lim (2012-01-01 03:02:55)
Unable to stay connected to FICGS
After logging in to FICGS, if I stay on any page for more than a few secs. I will not be able to click on any links (eg. submitting a move). If I click on anything, I will get the following error..
No data received
Unable to load the webpage because the server sent no data.
Can anyone shed some light on this problem? Thanks.
Don Groves (2012-01-02 00:02:18)
Unable to stay connected to FICGS
I use Firefox. Don't know about any other sites as this PC (with Windows 7) is only used for FICGS games.
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-03 13:40:13)
Unable to stay connected to FICGS
Ah... Ok! Indeed, when you're running a chess engine while surfing the internet EVERYTHING can happen :)
I saw that also... Browser not responding, not loading a page (so disconnecting after a while) and so on... This is a computer issue, as Microsoft Windows is not able to do several things at once as Unix can do.
Don Groves (2012-01-03 14:16:01)
Unable to stay connected to FICGS
MS Windows 7 dated 2011; Unix dated 1975. Ha!
Gino Figlio (2012-01-03 15:37:10)
Houdini and draw rate evolution at ICCF
The influence is obvious, if you look at the draw rate of top OTB events you will find much higher numbers (>70%). The draw rate in top ICCF events is also pretty high.
The draws are not evenly distributed. If you look at the relationship of average rating (rating category) and draw rate in ICCF, they are correlated. I found this after reviewing 160 events in 2007 (I was studying how fast the events were ending and not directly draw rate). I am showing the percentage of draws +/- SD for 160 events that ended in 2007:
Events rated under 2200: 19.1 +/-11.6
Events rated 2200 or above: 33.4 +/- 22
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-12 21:04:58)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Finally, this discussion to replace the two following discussions that ended on about the same conclusion and to have opinions on this new chess tournament : CHESS STANDARD OPEN (rated double round robin for 5 players, with entry fee 30 epoints & prize 145 epoints, no elo restriction)
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10165
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=10127
Thibault de Vassal (2012-01-16 11:40:38)
Time control for lightning games
Hi all,
I've been told that 1h + 15 sec./move (freestyle cup time control) would be better for lightning games than 20 min + 30 sec./move
As I don't want to create another advanced chess category (no good name, not useful), I'd like to know how many people among players who tried it think that such a change would be a good thing.
As for me, I'm not so favourable to such a change, my point is: 1h + 15 sec. means that you'll have to wait for your opponent 1 hour before he plays his next move! That is quite long, particularly to win no point, and you could even lose the game if your opponent comes back just before the end... That's why I prefer 20 min + 30 sec. per move, that is in average as long as the freestyle time control.
Any opinion?
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 :/)
Don Groves (2012-02-02 07:36:59)
Standard open : DRR with entry fee/prize
Thib: This is probably a naive question, but do you think any players here have multiple accounts and are trying to win games or ELO points that way?
Ali Raza (2012-02-12 23:32:40)
BRE : Home (VBPmalikraza)
Results of @BREwatford #passivhaus competition due tomorrow afternoon. Winning homes to be on our Innovation Parks.
Don Groves (2012-02-18 15:28:32)
Folding in Poker
We still have the problem though of not always showing all both hands in a showdown. The hold-em rules are that each hand in the final showdown is shown starting to the left of the dealer.
If no one folds, then both hands must be shown. If a player doesn't want to show his hand, he can do what Scott has suggested. But if the final bet is called, both hands should be shown.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-21 19:46:09)
Folding in Poker
I cannot remember any change for the poker rating rules!? See there:
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_poker_holdem
When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly... And even faster under 2000.
The fact is that Nelson is really hard to catch :)
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2012-02-23 23:44:10)
Rating in Poker
Hello Thibault,
you wrote:
"When you win or lose a game against a similar rating, you still win or lose about 20 or 30 points so it goes quite quickly."
This is no longer true. If both players have the same rating (> 1999), the winner wins 9 points. Even if the loser has 300 points more, the winner gets only 16 points.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 20:36:16)
Folding in Poker
Ok, note: it could have been discussed in the forum when I announced it... Anyway the current rules may be better at the end, ratings are not dedicated to change faster than necessary. It also avoids that anyone can reach the top just by lasting a few games.
Also look at the results of Nelson:
vs. Aleksey Payzansky (2086) : 67% (56 games, 38 wins, 18 losses)
vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006) : 90% (52 games, 47 wins, 5 losses)
vs. Jason Repa (2095) : 58% (39 games, 23 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Yulian Kehayov (2022) : 54% (35 games, 19 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Anderson Barradas (2021) : 72% (29 games, 21 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Scott Nichols (2119) : 64% (28 games, 18 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Lubos Fric (1924) : 68% (25 games, 17 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Stephane Legrand (2187) : 54% (22 games, 12 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Rolf Staggat (2116) : 61% (21 games, 13 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Janeen Walden (2000) : 75% (20 games, 15 wins, 5 losses)
IMO he just fully deserves his rating. The reason why noone else can reach it may be just that he's the best player for a while, what do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 23:49:28)
Folding in Poker
For those who may join the discussion, the question is: should we change the poker rating rules so that we win or lose twice points after each game compared to now.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-27 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 (2012-03-04 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 ?"
Scott Nichols (2012-03-04 22:48:24)
FICGS poker ratings
An interesting challenge. I held the #1 spot for a long time and in truth lost interest and let myself slip down, playing rarely and then stopping for over a year I'm pretty sure. So just recently I announced my intentions to reclaim the #1 spot and hold it before this year is over.
Then soon "after" I said this, Nelson resigned his games to start this "experiment". IMO this is how, in addition to playing good poker, he achieved being able to stay #1 for long periods of time. First, you have to play as many games as possible, over a hundred or more. This will allow you to implement the second phase. That is you get to pick and choose which games to play out immediately an which to stop playing to continue at a more opportune time. e.g. Only finish the "winning" games to get to the top. Then when you have a sufficient lead to where a loss or two won't hurt your position, THEN play out the losing ones.
Thib quote from above " In my opinion he'll reach the top rankings within a few months (particularly if he plays bullet games) which is quite short compared to correspondence chess. " Well for him to do this, he will have to get by me, and others, this time. So consider the Gauntlet thrown down! Scott
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-04 23:01:30)
FICGS poker ratings
A problem is that it is impossible to enter new waiting lists when having more than 50 poker games running.
On the other point your strategy may work but at the end you'll probably lose many points... I prefer to lose the almost lost games before to win the almost won ones to have a stable high rating. Anyway it would take much time to sort, I prefer to play all games the same way.
That will be an instructive challenge for sure.
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 03:29:32)
FICGS poker ratings
Thank you for the compliment, Scott!
I consider you to be one of the top players and have great respect for you: as both top poker and as a person. You're also a very worthy adversary and our matches are almost always 3-2 (on either side)! :)
Thank you, Thibault, for recognizing my point that it is possible to climb the ladder quite quickly using the current rating system.
I would like to note that it is also possible to climb the ladder without using any strategy. Throughout all of my poker matches on FICGS, I always finished my games (both the winning games and the losing games). I could have easily waited a long time (like some players obviously do on this site) to finish my losing games, but I refuse to do that out of respect for my opponents.
Although poker is a game that requires a combination of luck and skill, I believe that respect belongs here as well. Out of my overall record of 202 completed games, I have won 120 and lost 80. During each game, I was always honorable. For instance, if it is my turn and I know that I am 4 chips away from losing a match 3-0, I will refuse to delay the game and deny my opponent his victory for the next two months even though I have 60 days left on the clock.
Besides, it is my philosophy that the best thing to do when opponent outplays me is to accept the loss, learn from it, and then try to win in a rematch! :)
Thibault de Vassal (2012-03-05 16:51:57)
FICGS poker ratings
Ah, another argument for the current rating rules: unlike advanced chess, bullet poker games count for the same rating list, so it is quite easy and fast to win points this way.
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.
Scott Nichols (2012-03-07 23:49:50)
50+ Poker Games
Freestyle poker! 9 players at one table, last one left wins the points! :)
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?
Alvin Alcala (2012-03-13 16:57:33)
Riccio & Evans win Infinity freestyle
Congratulations! both are worthy champions!
Don Groves (2012-03-14 23:30:27)
Replaying games
I have <Game 64299> (poker holdem) with nothing in between. Using latest Firefox version on Windows 7.
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.
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?
Paul Valle (2012-04-12 11:36:49)
King's Gambit solved!
I've been absent from the chess for a while. But suddenly felt the urge to waste some time at work browsing through old chess-articles. Being a huge fan of gambit-play, I thought Id share the following: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=8047
Against the Kings Gambit accepted, apparently the only way to hold a theoretical draw is by 3.Be2
Don Groves (2012-04-12 12:34:37)
King's Gambit solved!
How long will it take to do the same for other popular openings? Will Chess survive or gradually become a relic of times past?
With that much computing power (and no end of advances in sight), will a human ever win a another game against the best computer?
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.
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 15:50:47)
XFCC Play
Damn, I am still getting that issue where i can not read ficgs links on here. Each time I click on a link, as per the above link, a new window opens and I get the please type in your username and password again message screen.
And then I am back to the home page, not the link.
I have just tried in firefox, chrome and ie.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-21 17:57:05)
LSS
Well, as I said in the chat I'm really surprised by all this... I also had prompt and courteous conversations with Ortwin (years ago) so I recommended Daniel to post in LSS forum to try to know why this winning game was suddenly adjudicated.
Daniel, were you discussing with your opponent during the game? Maybe he reported some messages (rules are probably different on this issue)!?
I hope we'll know more about this.
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.
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.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 06:50:06)
LSS is the worst Corr server
I was not discussing with my opponent. I feel like corr issues in general are something the corr community should be aware of so I do not share Garvin or Don's opinion. I obviously can't post this on lss forums as I have been banned there. Clearly, posting on forums of a site that is so wildly out of control is a waste of one's time and breath anyways.
Frankly, I am most ashamed of Scott's response above all else. His only problem with 20 games being forfeited is that it wasn't 21 so he could claim an illegitimate win as well - disgusting. Frankly the more I see of the correspondence chess world the more inclined I am to leave it permanently behind.
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.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 19:43:08)
LSS is the worst Corr server
FICGS already has a rule like that in that its every 60 days here which is far more reasonable. And I have used that to great effect to beat a strong player it required 49 days of analyzing some tough lines to win. If at 30 days, I was forced to move, it would have been a draw.
Mr. Ortwin forgets to mention I didn't violate this rule. But then Ortwin has shown himself to be a very unreasonable character.
Daniel Parmet (2012-04-22 19:59:50)
LSS is the worst Corr server
In general, I could make many points to Ortwin's diminutive response. However, his lying aside - he has admitted to his disgusting actions and given specious reasoning for it. At this point, I think its best to let the topic drop. Others know LSS is not a safe place to play now and that was my only point. It is clear there can never be any proper resolution in my case personally.
On to the topic of the 60 day rule which is the real reason for my response. I think many people are forgetting that not everyone is retired with little to do with their time but chess. Many of us work and/or go to school. And when you have a complicated position, it is very very unreasonable to expect a response in 10 days time out of someone that works 80 hour weeks. I recognize that most of my opponents these days respond within 24 hours or less no matter what the move or how complicated the position... but this is because I am playing in general a lower caliber of player that just blindly follows the computer. I have the privilege of knowing GM Tansel Turgut and he tells me he never plays more than 10 games at once and generally doesn't make a move before 25 days of thought. I would others to stop for a moment and consider that not *everyone* is like you. They have other demands on their time and other analysis methods.
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.
Scott Nichols (2012-04-24 04:32:03)
Do the cards really matter?
I hope this doesn't sound to dumb, but I was thinking about this. I've played poker for about 40 years from penny ante with the family to no limit games where if you don't win, the rent don't get paid.
Some people try to calculate the odds, the number of "outs" etc. Play the game scientifically, others play by the feel of the game. I've seen and believe that when the stakes are up there, the cards don't really matter.
Imagine like in a movie, you were put in a position that you had no choice but to play a game of hold-em for your life. A lot of people dream to play in the million dollar tourney's in Vegas, but for 99% of them, the dream shatters, and it ends up being their life for a great many of them. So the question is, could you call his "all-in" knowing what happens if you lose?
Garvin Gray (2012-04-24 15:01:32)
Ficgs World Cup
Following discussions about slow tournament entries, bracket and band rating issues and many other topics, a common item that came out of those discussions is that trying a modified version of the ficgs world championship is worth a trial.
So Ficgs World Cup sounds like a good name.
Format:
In the Ficgs world championship, there are many different qualifying stages, depending on your finishing position from the last cycle, your rating at the time of entry and the strength and total number of the other entrants.
While this format is very good for the concept envisaged when it was created, I think a ficgs world cup, with a format that will be explained below is required to cover a few gaps that are in the ficgs world championship.
The ficgs world cup will work as follows.
1) Everyone enters before a certain date, say June 1st 2012.
2) As soon as entries close, that is it. Entries are not taken after this date and there are NO replacements. The groups are meant to be of equal strength. Adding a new player can distort this.
3) Entrants are then divided into groups of roughly equal strength. Highest rated person is seed 1 in Group A, 2nd highest rated person is seed 1 in Group B. Serpentine pairings are used to allocate all players to each group.
4) How many players and how many groups is determined after the entries have closed. I would think that there will be probably 11 groups of 11 players (121 entries in total). It might be likely that we have to have three stages, depending on total number of entries.
5) 1 person from each group qualifies for the final stage. This is determined by total score, total wins and then TER. This does differ from the tie break formula of the FicgsWCH.
Pros:
1) Everyone gets a game against players of different ratings, no segregated groups or players
2) Everyone starts from stage one
3) The format is clear to understand
Cons:
1) May not be as tempting to the highest rated players (fear of loss of rating points)
2) Might take longer to finish
In my opinion, this is a format that deserves a couple of trial events to see if it is successful
Thibault de Vassal (2012-04-24 16:32:49)
Do the cards really matter?
I agree with Garvin that it is harder to play well at correspondence poker... well it leaves some space to "rain man"-like guys :) It is possible to identify some repeating behaviours after a while though...
What do you mean exactly "four handed poker"?
@Scott: no-limit poker is not poker anymore... money is king and the richest will always win at the end if the stakes are too high. And the higher the stakes, the less it will take time.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-24 22:58:29)
Ficgs World Cup
Sounds like a good idea to me. Big groups are a good idea - it gives more chance of getting a clear group winner without tie breaks.
Garvin Gray (2012-04-25 01:52:44)
Ficgs World Cup
Seen a few ideas, some that I thought would not be popular are been suggested as to give it a go. Good:)
There is a simple solution to keeping it to 2 stages. Just announce there will be 11 groups and leave the number of players in each group till when you know the final numbers.
So 220 players would be 11 groups of 20 players. That might be too much for some people, but you get the general idea.
Perhaps with 20 player groups (hypothetical of course), a slightly longer time control would be a good idea, perhaps 30 days initial plus 3 day increment ;)
Thib: I was thinking about the issue of the number of groups and I think it has to be eleven groups in the first stage. Then each of the 1st place group winners go through to final stage.
I am against any concept of rating bands, or even the mention of the concept. That is totally against the principle, design and point of this format.
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.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-09 01:46:02)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH
Xiao Tong, winner of the 6th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions, here is the first part:
FICGS - Hello Xiao, congratulations once again for winning this nice match. Svante Carl von Erichsen was FICGS champion from the start of the site, after winning 5 championships. What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Xiao Tong - Mr. Svante Carl von Erichsen is the strongest player I have met on this site. The games are so tough. In the middle of this match I thought I would lose in at least two games. At last I am lucky to have a 4-1 winning.
FICGS - Would you like to tell us a few words about you (where you live, other games you play, Go servers you play on...) so that we know you better?
Xiao Tong - I live in China but when I started to play Go on this site I was visiting France. In China when we play Go face to face, generally it takes 2 or 3 hours. But when we play on the ineternet, we always choose 30sec/move. I always play on TYGEM site, which is a China/Korea cooperated site. Before playing we need to install a client software. You can visit this address http://www.tygembaduk.com
FICGS - Unfortunately you are one of the rare chinese players at FICGS, but obviously they do very well. We all know many chinese Go champions names, could you tell us your opinion on the state of Go in China and in the world nowadays?
Xiao Tong - The past 10 years can be called Korea decade. They won more world championships than Chinese players, because before 1990 few Chinese children studied Go. But when China won several matches between China and Japan in late 1980s, more and more children started to study and play go. And then these millions of Go children grew up. Now Chinese players can get more world champions than Korea. I think besides the several world champions there are 30 young players in China who may win world championships in the future. They aged from 16-25.
FICGS - The best Go engines would now reach a level of 4 or 5 dan, is computer Go something that helps in such a correspondence Go championship according to you (and without revealing your secrets of course)? Do you think it is becoming a danger as it is for chess?
Xiao Tong - I dont think computer Go engines can do anything. They are too weak.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your opponents before starting your games? Do you think that preparation is really important like it is in Correspondence chess?
Xiao Tong - I dont take much time to analyze my opponents. But I will watch their games to get a first evaluation. World champions need to prepare before the game, because preparation can save their time in game. For me, preparation mean nothing.
FICGS - This FICGS Go championship is still young, what did you think about it? Would you change something, any rule, to improve it?
Xiao Tong - 1, Encourage players to play live games. One game can be finished in 2 hours when they play at 30sec/move. The more they play, the higher the site level will be. 2, when the world champion match is live on net, encourage player watch the games through your site. Let the watcher can bet on the live games. It will be more funny.
Many thanks to Xiao for these instructive answers, to be continued...
Don Groves (2012-05-09 17:04:38)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH
I think his suggestion of FICGS carrying live games is excellent. I don't know if this might be too much work for Thib though ;-)
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...
Peter W. Anderson (2012-05-12 09:40:47)
Playing poker for e-points
I don't think this is a problem just because of French law. My understanding is that it is illegal to take on-line bets from US citizens regardless of which country is hosting the service. It happens but it is not legal. As e-points can be traded for money, this could be a problem.
On-line gambling is legal in the UK but sone UK companies have been charged under US laws for allowing US citizens to play on their poker sites. Most big UK on-line gambling companies block US citizens from playing at their sites.
So even if French law changes, be very careful Thibault. You would need to check the law of every country of the players.
I know a little bit about this as I have a friend who is hoping to make a lot of money (quite legally!) from on-line poker in the US (but for obvious reasons I can't say how).
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.
Garvin Gray (2012-06-06 13:53:31)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Hello all,
Current discussion here: http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=24942
Following discussions on RF and now what looks like a completely different format to what I was proposing and ideas I had in mind and seeing what looks like a no compromise situation from the RF side, it looks almost certain that I will not be having anything to do with organising this event, or participating for either side.
When I first came up with this idea of trying to get a second match going, one of the main ideas was to help promote both forums and playing clients to a wider audience, and especially to the better players for both sites.
Now that I see what RF seems to have in mind, or at least what they are willing to accept for playing conditions, I find them wholly unacceptable and contrary to the ideas and purposes originally intended.
The current proposed design really does have a pro RF feel about it, in that FICGS players will have to learn how to use xfccplay to play on here, plus possibly sign up an account, but RF players will not have to do the same at FICGS. I am also wondering, what happens if the high majority of players from both sites say they only want to play on their own forum. This whole competition falls over.
RF 'bosses' have been kind enough to allow xfccplay to be used for these games to make them a better product. I do not think it is unreasonable for RF players to play some of their games on FICGS.
Secondly, the current proposed design also goes competely against another original idea, which was to have the top player from RF competing against the top player from FICGS. And so on down the boards. This current design will most likely result in random board pairings and henceforth likely mis-matches, rather than having showpiece games and at the same time having the bottom players from both sides games counting as much as the top board. Potentially it could now be the top player from FICGS against the two bottom players from RF and vice versa. That is ridiculous.
So all in all, I have proposed a format originally on both sites. I do not see the current proposed format as achieving anything substantial and certainly not in the vein of the original ideas. Had I known the current structure was going to be proposed, I never would have bothered proposing this in the first place.
Unless the current structure changes, I hereby resign as overall organiser and go between for both forums and also as a participant in the second match.
Kind regards,
Garvin Gray
Garvin Gray (2012-06-08 11:07:00)
Second match v Rybka Forum
Following on from my post above, we will now be going with the format originally posted, which is:
1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) Xfccplay will be used for the games played at RF
5) Conditional move system will be used for the games played at RF. Games played here will be using the standard interface.
Both sides are going to have to make compromises. Ficgs players who are not already familiar with xfccplay are going to need to learn how to use it and will also need to join RF.
RF players, who are not members of here already, will need to sign up to here and learn how to use this interface.
I can not give a definite sign up by this date yet as some of the nuts and bolts are still being worked out.
Can everyone start saying if they are going to play? I hope this will be more than just the players who already play in WBCCC as I do hope it is the best players from both sites participating as well.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-07-28 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
Juri Eintalu (2022-07-13 09:45:36)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
The ICCF Statutes webpage provides a new Statute, valid from 9th May 2022.
www.iccf.com/message?message=449
Article 17 contains a new sentence now:
"The Executive Board is empowered by Congress to propose suspension or dismissal of member federations for non-financial reasons."
Thus, the ICCF has also made a decision to suspend Russia and Belarus.
Thus, it seems that the ICCF Congress has calculated as follows:
34/(34 + 13) = 34/47 = 0.72 = 72%
It means that the "abstained" 13 voters have not been taken into account.
But who voted how, who remained neutral, who was missing, etc.?
Article 12 says the following:
"Amendments to the statutes require a vote of the general assembly, called the Congress, and a majority of two thirds of the members present or represented."
However, that Extraordinary Congress was online.
Finally, the downloadable table has other pages providing more detailed information. Thus, there is information that Estonian representative JÃŧri Kuusik did not "attend" the online congress.
The meanings of the terms "present", "represented", "attended", and "abstained" have remained unclear, which makes the manipulations possible.
Clarity is missing around that issue and on the ICCF homepage.
David Ward (2012-09-12 17:33:33)
Faster Refresh Time
I get the following report after clicking "No refresh" on the "My games" page, but I continue to get messages that Internet Explorer blocked a popup from www.ficgs.com.
"This page will refresh itself when you have a new move to play, then you'll see a (!) at the beginning of the page title.
If you do not see the clock below, your browser could not support Frames & Javascript or it could be turned off. In this case you will have to refresh the page manually.
This option is currently off.
Possible refresh delays for this session: no refresh, 5 sec, 10 sec, 30 sec. "
Garvin Gray (2012-09-23 08:11:54)
Limit number of poker games
I have tried reading this thread a few times, but seem to be missing a point or three, maybe even four.
1) Thib- Can you explain this a bit more in simpler fashion :)- It is possible to calculate it but in brief, for 1 game of 1000 dealts, the perf will be opp.rating +350 or opp.rating -350 .. for 10 games of 100 deals with a score of 7/3 (which is quite unbalanced already for so few hands), the perf will be about opp.rating +170 or opp.rating -170
2) When posters are referring to faster games, are they talking about reducing the time control, or having the blinds increase at a faster rate?
3) I would prefer best of 3, rather than best of 5. I am not sure if best of 5 on here really does produce more accurate ratings as I find it quite common that players will go all in early, or take risks early on, knowing even if they lose set 1, they are only behind 1-0 and there is a long way to go. Best of 3 would force players to play 'real poker' from earlier on.
This would produce more meaningful results.
The number of hands I play which involve just 1 and 2 chips pisses me off no end and deters me from playing more often.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-09-27 23:39:12)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
By beating Alberto Gueci in the final match of the 6th chess championship & Ostap Hladky in the candidates final of the 7th chess championship, Eros Riccio will remain FICGS chess champion for at least 16 months! After this huge performance, Eros accepted to answer a few questions:
----------------------------------
- Hello Eros and congratulations again for winning your 3rd and 4th (respectively 6th and 7th cycles) FICGS chess championships in a row, beating Alerto Gueci in the 12 games match of the final match and Ostap Hladky in the 8 games match of the candidates final so that you meet yourself in the last round that thus will not happen for the 3rd time of the championship (first time was during the first cycle because there was no champion yet). All games of the two matches were drawn, but it does not say much on the intensity of the match as we all know your strategy since your win in your first final match vs. Edward Kotlyanskiy when you explained that your preferred a draw that guarantees the victory than a possible win where a mouse slip is still possible. Obviously your strategy works very well but one can add that you had an impressive number of running games at the rapid time control, so very much pressure... How did you live these last months of correspondence chess and these two matches?
Hi Thib! And thanks once again for the congratulations. These 28 games (let's not forget also the 8 games match against Gino Figlio) probably started in the worst moment for me, just a few months after the very important European Team Championship on ICCF had started. When I told my captain that I was starting another 28 games... he was very disappointed and worried, as he had repeated a lot of times to every player of our team not to start new tournaments and to focus only on this tournament. Also for this reason I had decided not to join the new Italian Championship and other tournaments and to withdraw from the Champions League, but unfortunately I had no control on when to start my FICGS games. So... my priority was for my ICCF games, and fortunately for me all I needed to do in my FICGS Matches to win was to make draws, and that's what I tried to do in most of my games as fast as possible, and to my surprise my opponents accepted to draw many games quite quickly, not trying to fight each game "to death" like I would have done if I would have been them. This of course only created quick boring games, but I didn't see the point in putting energy in trying to win games myself.... I think my opponents should have done that!
- We all know that you and Alberto are good friends from long time, did it influence your match in the 6th WCH in any way according to you?
Well, it's a good think knowing your opponent's habits... you can send your moves as soon as you know he goes to bed :-)
- Ostap Hladky is undoubtly one of the strongest players at FICGS, was this match (7th WCH candidates final) very different from the other one?
Hladky was the strongest player I had ever played on FICGS, he is very unpredictable, he simply plays unexpected moves that engines don't suggest, but if you show them those moves, they slowly realize those are very good moves. I risked to lose more than one game vs him, even as White. Luckily I still managed to draw, and in my opinion he also accepted some draws too quickly.
- With the last evolutions of chess engines, playing better & better chess, would you say that you now spend less time on each game or not at all?
I don't spend less time on my games, I still try to use (almost) all the time on my "clock". Trying to analyze as many variations as possible with the time you are given has little to do with engines improvement, who still are far from being able to always suggesting the best move by simply letting them run for hours on a static position. You need to analyze going "forward" in the position in order to be able to find the best moves.
- By the way, it is said sometimes (again) that correspondence chess will not survive the decade, what do you think? Do you envisage to change for Go or poker like many players? :)
Wins and Losses still happen even at the highest levels at the present time. I think that many years still have to pass before having all draws in high level tournaments. When that happens... and it will probably happen sooner or later as chess in my opinion is a draw with perfect play... then probably new rules will be introduced, maybe the board will be enlarged and even new pieces with new movements might be invented.
- You now are ICCF GM with an impressive 2624 rating, how are going your other correspondence chess competitions? Do you have any goal to reach yet?
All my ICCF tournaments are going good, and very soon I will be Italian Champion once again (just waiting my last opponent to resign a lost position). I still haven't reached the first place in the italian elo rating list though. That would be a goal I would surely have pleasure in reaching, and of course I would like to win the ICCF's World Championship at least once. After that I can retire :-)
- Thank you Eros, also for this great correspondence chess lesson.
Welcome Thib! A pleasure for me.
Garvin Gray (2012-10-06 17:21:33)
WCH Final match
After having read Eros Riccio's answers to the interview questions on his defending his title twice, I am proposing a few changes to the final match.
I wish to make it clear that this is not in any way an attack on any person. They can only play to the rules set and try to use those rules to their advantage.
My issue is with the rules themselves.
I would like to propose a new format for the final match, because I think it is ridiculous that any player can defend their title with short draws and make no real attempt to prove that they are superior than their opponent.
Of course if the challenger is happy to draw all eight or twelve games, then that is their 'fault' as well.
My proposal is the following:
After eight games, if neither player has won a game, then the match continues for another four games.
In the first eight games, if both sides have won at least one game each, then the result is a drawn match and the champion keeps their title.
In the tie breaking four games, as soon as one player wins a game, the match is over.
I think the current rules are weighted way too much in favour of the champion, which as we have seen from these two games, the champion does not even have to try to prove that he is better than the challenger, but can just draw all eight/twelve games and retain the title.
Thib, please change the rules for this upcoming cycle.
Jose Carrizo (2012-10-07 01:43:48)
WCH Final match
Very interesting proposal Garvin,and I see the point, but I think there is a problem with: "In the tie breaking four games, as soon as one player wins a game, the match is over." A lost position may be continued to avoid the first loss.
Maybe the tiebreak games must be played in faster time controls, and so on, like tiebreaks in OTB chess.
Garvin Gray (2012-10-07 19:13:36)
WCH Final match
>A lost position may be continued to avoid the first loss.
I had carefully considered this possibility. I will take an example from transfer/bughouse. When one player is about to be mated, they will stop playing that game, allowing their time to run out, in the hope that their partner will be able to mate the opposition before their own time runs out.
If both games in transfer reach a mate in one position, the side with less time on their clock with their turn to move loses as they will run out of time first.
How does this apply to the WCH?
Well, yes a player could stall on a game they think is lost, but then they would also be required to win another game to make up for it.
This could be a bit silly, but better than other options.
At least there is a sufficient reward for trying to win a game, which is the main objective of all this, to try and get the players to try and win as many games as possible.
>Maybe the tiebreak games must be played in faster time controls, and so on, like tiebreaks in OTB chess.
Not realistic on here. The faster the game , the more it becomes like freestyle/advanced chess and less like correspondence. Also, as is shown in otb, some players would prefer to try and win in rapids, so the solution of having rapid games could in fact increase the short draw odds because the players think, I would rather play a few rapid games, rather than a years worth of long correspondence games.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-07 19:16:15)
WCH Final match
I'm not sure if there can be a real debate on this issue (but we can try of course)... all opinions are in the nature, when I created FICGS I had in mind the original FIDE WCH and I'm still a huge fan of this system. Now fact is FIDE WCH does not mean anything anymore (its champions as well) after numerous bad changes and I feel FICGS chess WCH makes sense more and more.
12 games is enough to fight for a win IMO and I'm sure that there are a few players able to beat Eros in such a match (doesn't mean it would happen anytime though :)), I'm just too impatient to watch the next ones. Eros is building his name in correspondence chess in multiple places at the same time, and the fact that it happened here so quickly after he joined us makes me think that the system is good! I see nothing to change, the result of his match with Alberto was fully explained by Eros, the score has no importance at the end... and he deserves his other title in the other cycle even more by not having to play the final match... just my opinion of course, as I can understand all systems (ICCF etc.), just a question of personal taste at the end.
Garvin Gray (2012-10-09 16:33:26)
WCH Final match
Thib: I think your analysis or love with the old style world champ format contains a flaw in relation to playing on here.
In the old style world champs, games are played one at a time. On here, all the games start at the same time.
Secondly, with the old style world champs, the matches were over 24 games, so the equivalent would be to play the final match over 24 games.
The current world champ cycle suffers from the same effect as the ficgs final match does, the match is too short, resulting in lots of draws because one loss is devastating.
If you do not want to change the rules to encourage players to try for wins, then lengthen the match to 24 games.
Otherwise you are just like quite a lot of organisers who just love the past (tradition) and are not prepared to make the players actually try to win games, rather than bore their viewers to death with short draws.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-09 18:52:25)
WCH Final match
Of course this correspondence chess championship is very different from FIDE WCH, but it seems to me that 12 games is still enough (24 games would be quite inhuman by the way), the score in the latest final matches was not significant on the draws issue, particularly now that we all know how Eros deals with it (in a smart way that can be compared to Kramnik's strategy in his match vs. Kasparov: draw with Berlin's defence, fight with White if no risk). IMO the champion has nothing to prove as he made it in a whole cycle and by beating the previous one, while a challenger should at least be able to win one game out of 12.
Actually the real evolution should have been towards freestyle chess, but it has no success enough to organize a whole cycle and it looks like Eros is the king as well. Also I don't like the idea to melt different time controls like FIDE does. The whole challenge is about one thing, not 3 or 4 differents kinds of games.
I love the past tradition not because it is a tradition, but because I really think it is the best system so far! If a new system proves to be better to me (there will always be a question of taste though, of course) then we would have to discuss it here.
The only way to encourage players to try for wins is to go towards the ICCF format, that has other issues that I wanted to avoid at any price. And why to do the same?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-10-09 19:16:42)
WCH Final match
No problem, I understand your concern... well I believe that these short draws are just a problem instead of another, at least we have a clear champion! What will happen when round-robin WCH tournaments (ICCF format) will be decided by Soderborn or whatever because of several winners with 6,5 or 7 out of 12 points, as it seems to happen in some tournaments... Though there is no better way to encourage players to win than RR tournaments.
Garvin Gray (2012-10-13 12:49:22)
WCH Final match
Neel, I have no particular issue with draw odds. Being corro, it is not possible to organise anything that might be still decent corro, but is at a more rapid time control to get a tie break going.
My issue is that as Eros's comments have shown, he was not even slightly forced to try and win any of the games.
So I think the rules should be made more attractive to try and get players to win games (and yes put on a show too).
Another idea could be to start eight games, if the champion is ahead, the match is over and if still tied, start games 9 to 16.
If the challenger is ahead after game 8, games 9 to 16 are still played, and now the champion would have to go all out to win a game to at least draw level.
Kamesh Nookala (2012-10-23 07:36:10)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
°!°
Better Retire before i start playing again :-o
I could have played till death without draw offers.
BTW, Congrats Mr. Riccio.
Garvin Gray (2012-11-03 02:02:48)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
Under the system we have at the moment, for a person to become Ficgs world champ, do they need to beat Eros Riccio in two consecutive matches to become champion?
Thibault de Vassal (2012-11-04 01:23:15)
Eros Riccio wins 6th and 7th chess WCH
Only if Eros is reaching the candidates final while he's champion... that's the current challenge for Jeroen, that's the rule so that is fair.
Nick Burrows (2012-11-28 19:13:12)
How do I stop the pop-up message boxes?
Well I was not completely removed from society as I had access to a house which was about 200 metres away. It was wonderful to live simply amongst nature, chopping wood & carrying water! Cold in winter once the stove went out, but a wonderful experience...
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.
Michael Aigner (2012-12-19 17:17:23)
The very unofficial World Championship
Final standing: 4,5 : 1,5 for H3
But finaly Cluster Rybka was able to win a game :-)
[Event "105m+15s, unrated"]
[Site "Engine Room"]
[Date "2012.12.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Felix 2, Houdini 3 Pro x64"]
[Black "TryMe, Rybka Cluster 64 Cor"]
[Result "0-1"]
[PlyCount "201"]
[EventDate "2012.12.18"]
[TimeControl "6300+15"]
1. e4 c6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 {0.34/28 249} dxe4 {0.21/23 216} 4. Nxe4 {0.33/29 0}
Nf6 {0.21/23 186 (Lf5)} 5. Nxf6+ {0.32/29 284} exf6 {0.21/24 0} 6. Nf3 {0.34/
29 154} Na6 {0.19/23 28} 7. a3 {0.34/29 122} Nc7 {0.17/24 60} 8. Bd3 {0.30/29
73} Qe7+ {0.16/24 250} 9. Be2 {0.31/31 0} Bf5 {0.18/25 261} 10. O-O {0.29/30 40
} Qd7 {0.16/25 128} 11. Nh4 {0.34/30 180 (c4)} Be6 {0.16/23 166} 12. c4 {0.28/
29 0} b5 {0.16/22 281 (Ld6)} 13. Re1 {0.27/27 197 (Lf4)} bxc4 {0.05/22 281
(Le7)} 14. Bxc4 {0.28/27 118} g6 {0.04/23 9} 15. Bd2 {0.16/28 564} Be7 {0.03/
24 0} 16. Rc1 {0.16/27 120 (Lxe6)} O-O {-0.01/22 229} 17. Nf3 {0.13/28 75} a5 {
-0.03/22 183 (Tfc8)} 18. Bf4 {0.04/25 142 (Dc2)} Bd6 {-0.15/23 370} 19. Bxe6 {
0.03/28 0} Nxe6 {-0.16/20 31} 20. Be3 {0.00/28 88 (Ld2)} Rfb8 {-0.13/21 269
(Tfc8)} 21. Qc2 {0.00/28 213} Ra6 {-0.14/23 1 (Tc8)} 22. Qe2 {0.05/26 134 (Dc4)
} Qb7 {-0.19/23 186 (Taa8)} 23. Rc2 {-0.04/28 250 (g3)} Rd8 {-0.19/23 338 (Lf8)
} 24. h3 {-0.06/26 88} Be7 {-0.20/22 47 (Lf8)} 25. h4 {-0.04/25 116 (Dd2)} Rd7
{-0.26/24 331 (Td5)} 26. Rc4 {-0.07/26 98 (Dd1)} Rb6 {-0.29/23 190} 27. Bc1 {
-0.11/30 0} Rd5 {-0.28/23 143} 28. Qd2 {-0.11/29 188 (Dc2)} Bd6 {-0.29/23 237
(Lf8)} 29. Qc2 {-0.19/25 141} Kg7 {-0.29/22 0} 30. Re4 {-0.23/24 104 (Te2)}
Rdb5 {-0.34/22 231} 31. Qd1 {-0.21/26 0 (Te1)} Bb8 {-0.43/24 269 (Th5)} 32. Qd2
{-0.26/25 82} Qd7 {-0.40/20 0 (Td5)} 33. Qc2 {-0.29/26 204 (Dh6+)} Qd5 {-0.46/
24 131} 34. Qe2 {-0.36/27 0 (Te3)} h6 {-0.68/21 127 (Lc7)} 35. Rc3 {-0.54/25
164 (Te3)} g5 {-0.91/21 121} 36. g3 {-0.81/27 326 (De1)} f5 {-1.15/22 180} 37.
Rxe6 {-0.59/29 0} Qxe6 {-1.16/22 11} 38. Qxe6 {-0.71/30 137} fxe6 {-1.08/25 0}
39. hxg5 {-0.57/29 0} hxg5 {-1.06/25 15} 40. Nxg5 {-0.57/30 53} Kf6 {-1.08/25
39} 41. Rc4 {-0.62/30 57} Rb3 {-1.08/25 32 (Ld6)} 42. Kg2 {-0.49/30 67} e5 {-1.
07/24 0} 43. Nf3 {-0.51/30 55} e4 {-1.07/25 0} 44. Ng1 {-0.48/31 98} Rd3 {-1.
11/27 56 (Ke6)} 45. Ne2 {-0.53/31 55} Ke6 {-1.08/25 0} 46. Rc5 {-0.55/30 53}
Ra6 {-1.08/26 35} 47. Rc4 {-0.52/30 37} Rb3 {-1.08/26 14} 48. Nc3 {-0.56/28 53
(Tc2)} Bd6 {-1.08/25 78} 49. Kf1 {-0.55/30 0} Ra8 {-1.16/23 58} 50. Na4 {-0.55/
29 4} Rh8 {-1.21/22 52 (Kd7)} 51. Be3 {-0.61/28 59} Kf7 {-1.33/22 17 (Kd7)} 52.
Rxc6 {-0.55/27 51} Bxg3 {-1.45/23 0} 53. Rc5 {-0.99/30 213} f4 {-1.69/26 0} 54.
Bxf4 {-0.99/28 1} Bxf4 {-1.69/26 7} 55. Rf5+ {-0.99/28 4} Ke6 {-1.67/26 7} 56.
Rxf4 {-0.99/28 0} Kd5 {-1.72/27 8} 57. Ke2 {-0.97/31 45 (Sc3+)} Kxd4 {-1.86/25
37} 58. Rf7 {-0.94/31 25} Rh2 {-2.24/24 23 (Th5)} 59. Rd7+ {-1.87/27 45} Kc4 {
-2.11/23 0} 60. Re7 {-2.01/29 103} Rbh3 {-2.53/25 0} 61. Rxe4+ {-1.86/29 61}
Kb3 {-2.58/24 0} 62. Nc5+ {-1.97/30 107 (Sb6)} Kxb2 {-2.55/24 12} 63. a4 {-2.
10/27 31} Kc3 {-2.51/24 24} 64. Re8 {-2.22/29 25 (Se6)} Kb4 {-2.78/23 53} 65.
Nd3+ {-2.30/28 0 (Sb7)} Kxa4 {-2.81/22 5} 66. Rb8 {-2.42/30 53} Rh4 {-2.98/25
0 (Ka3)} 67. Kd2 {-3.12/30 222} R2h3 {-3.30/25 0} 68. Rf8 {-3.07/28 37 (Tc8)}
Rd4 {-3.76/23 71 (Kb3)} 69. f3 {-2.94/25 14} Rh5 {-3.68/23 16 (Thh4)} 70. Kc3 {
-3.12/29 51} Rhd5 {-3.81/24 0} 71. Nb2+ {-3.21/29 34} Kb5 {-3.90/25 0} 72. Rb8+
{-3.23/30 35} Kc6 {-3.96/26 0} 73. Rc8+ {-3.31/29 48} Kd7 {-4.04/27 0} 74. Rf8
{-3.73/31 166} Rb4 {-4.38/26 0 (Ke7)} 75. Nd3 {-3.36/29 38} Ra4 {-4.21/22 0}
76. Kb3 {-3.37/29 31 (Sf4)} Rad4 {-4.24/23 14} 77. Nf2 {-3.43/31 20} a4+ {-4.
50/26 16} 78. Kc3 {-5.40/30 144} Kc7 {-7.45/27 59} 79. Ne4 {-6.34/29 75} a3 {
-7.46/25 63} 80. Ra8 {-6.34/32 0} Rd3+ {-5.11/15 2} 81. Kc2 {-6.52/32 28} Kb7 {
-12.55/22 0} 82. Ra4 {-8.77/32 122} R5d4 {-24.25/25 0} 83. Ra5 {-8.79/31 74}
Kb6 {-32.02/26 0} 84. Ra8 {-10.20/28 45} Rd8 {-61.24/26 0} 85. Ra4 {-11.82/31
46} Kb5 {-62.63/26 0} 86. Ra7 {-7.47/28 38} Kb4 {-60.64/27 103} 87. Rb7+ {-13.
80/27 0} Kc4 {-23.29/26 1} 88. Ra7 {-13.80/22 9 (f4)} Rc8 {-#18/24 351 (Te3)}
89. Kb1 {-13.79/28 24} Rb8+ {-#16/26 171 (Th8)} 90. Kc1 {-10.99/26 23 (Ka1)}
Kd4 {-#17/24 182 (Kb4)} 91. Rd7+ {-12.22/29 73} Ke3 {-#16/26 0} 92. Re7 {-12.
22/25 7} Rc8+ {-#15/29 83 (Kxf3)} 93. Kb1 {-19.95/27 10} Kxf3 {-#15/29 75} 94.
Ng5+ {-#22/35 0} Kf4 {-77.98/20 1} 95. Ne6+ {-#19/34 20} Kf5 {-#13/28 61} 96.
Ng7+ {-#19/34 23} Kg6 {-#13/29 55} 97. Re6+ {-#17/33 0 (Te8)} Kxg7 {-#12/32 135
} 98. Re2 {-#15/39 0} Kg6 {-#11/32 94 (Kf6)} 99. Rf2 {-#15/38 89 (Th2)} Kg5 {
-#11/37 108 (Tcd8)} 100. Ka1 {-#14/36 28 (Ka2)} Kh4 {-#10/39 69 (Kg4)} 101. Rg2
{-#13/36 6 (Te2) Felix 2,Houdini 3 Pro x64 gibt auf (Lag: Av=0.24s, max=0.8s)}
0-1
Garvin Gray (2012-12-13 16:52:12)
WBCCC 2013
This information is in regards to the World Blitz Correspondence Chess Championship for the year 2013.
It is held on Rybka Forum www.rybkaforum.net.
There is a full sub forum located on that forum that explains a lot of the rules, current list of players and specifics of information.
For a general run down, read on:
My name is Garvin Gray and I am the organiser and arbiter for this event. This event attempts to bring as many strong correspondence and freestyle players together from all the different playing sites, such as iccf, ficgs, playchess, lss and many other sites.
As the title says, this is a blitz event, meaning the time controls are short compared to normal correspondence play. This requires players to devote a greater share of their focus to these games than would normal correspondence play.
This event has been held for two years now, with the 2012 version still in progress. Feel free to browse the 2012 sub forum to see the games and how the structure works.
In the two years of this event, I feel that many new discoveries have been made and advanced freestyle chess knowledge has certainly been increased, to the benefit of all. Those who have participated in both events have gained a lot from their participation and I want to see this continue.
To allow this event to start and finish in one calendar year, we start in mid January and for 2013, it will finish in mid December. The format requires that you will play one game as white and one game as black in each round. There are 10 games in total.
Each round is paired as an individual swiss using the dutch pairing rules, but accommodations are made because each person must have one white and one black game per round.
Kibitizing is allowed and encouraged, but discussions about future positions, game analysis or anything else that could affect the result of the game is not allowed. Feel free to read the thread on game commentary.
There will also be a thread for each round that allows discussion of events during the round, general discussion about games or other general chit chat.
We do seek to provide a friendly, but competitive environment for those who want to advance their freestyle skills, or test themselves against other players from the different sites. This event will take up quite a bit of your time as the time control is fast, the play is difficult and the enjoyment factor high.
This is not meant to be a deterrent, but I feel I should make it clear that you need to be dedicated and willing to play each and every game/round.
Withdrawing or timing out mid game is not acceptable and will see you removed from the event. If you think you can not complete a particular round, it is better to contact me and have you withdrawn from that round. You are free to rejoin the event in these circumstances, but will receive zero points for those two missed games.
I hope to see more entries and good freestyling to everyone.
Cheers,
Garvin Gray
WBCCC 2013 Organiser
Alvin Alcala (2012-12-13 21:18:12)
Improving visibility of draw offers
A popup window showing "a draw offered" will fix the problem.
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
Garvin Gray (2012-12-22 03:31:31)
Show opponents time
Hello Thibault,
I would like to see a display change.
Currently in my games, either in pending or running games setting, the amount of time I have remaining is showing. I would like to see a column which shows how much time my opponents have remaining.
I think this would be quite useful.
Please make this change :)
Cheers,
Garvin
Mark Josse (2013-01-03 21:05:10)
winning on time
Hi All
I have won some games on time but they dont seem to show up in my future rating performance. Do you get rating points for time wins or do they become unrated games ?
Please Advise
Thanks
Mark
Don Groves (2013-01-04 03:46:21)
winning on time
I believe a game must last for 10 moves to be counted as a win. The quitter does get a loss however. If this is not correct, I'm sure Thibault will let us know ;-)
Mark Josse (2013-01-04 22:16:05)
winning on time
Thanks Don that would fit with what is happening
Don Groves (2013-01-05 04:49:29)
winning on time
You're welcome, Mark.
Garvin Gray (2013-01-12 12:07:48)
How to amend rating?
Radimiro, If the game is longer than 10 moves, then yes you win on time and gain elo points. If the game is less than 10 moves, no points gained.
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".
Horatiu Adrian Petrescu (2013-01-16 02:10:00)
FICGS admin scam me
petrescu horatiuadrian :
why you lied to me in 2010?
(2013-01-16 02:05:18)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
question
(2013-01-16 02:04:26)
petrescu horatiuadrian :
thib ,I will not insult you if you answer me at my last
(2013-01-16 02:04:17)
devassal thibault :
that's the same here, but you can win money prizes...
(2013-01-16 02:04:11)
devassal thibault :
when you buy something, is this still your money?
(2013-01-16 02:03:53)
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 15:39:18)
FICGS admin scam me
That's nonsense Horatiu, since this site authorize computer chess, it is perfectly honest to play with machines, and of course I don't have to implement anything to avoid that...
About your money, you bought Epoints... You cannot ask for money just like this, you have to win silver/gold games to claim money prizes according to terms & conditions. You accepted this when registering.
Continuation of the chat:
devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] you just had to click the link...
(2013-01-16 14:18:23)
devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] the conditions are in the link
(2013-01-16 14:18:04)
devassal thibault :
[Remove this comment] this is the right email! with correct date
(2013-01-16 14:17:39)
Horatiu Adrian Petrescu (2013-01-16 17:56:29)
FICGS admin scam me
I was expecting at your shit answer,how else can think a man of greed carried to absurd.You are a man without morals and scruples.I cast pearls before swine.
Anand and Kasparov no play against computer for money stupido.You infantile ?
"None here wants to see such a system to be implemented":))) Hey arrogant boy I am nobody? I am member here since 2009.And how you know everybody else no wants ,you asked them ? Stupid and inflated admin.
And how many times you will repeat like a parrot that this site is not a bank so often I will say myself IS A BANK FOR YOURSELF. Everybody can see.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-01-16 18:18:25)
FICGS admin scam me
About cheating on these websites, quite easy... just use a chess engine, copy its moves from one window/computer to another and do not play the best moves all times... playing the 2nd or 3rd best move should be enough to beat most human players...... and do not win in less than 50 moves. No program can detect it. And almost everyone would be able to do that.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2013-03-19 17:51:20)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I can not imagine how a player can gain an advantage from the vacation time. Ok, he can analyze his games during that time, but his opponent has the same option. So the additional time cannot be the key to a win.
In my opinion the problem for some players is that it is annoying when they have to wait longer for an answer. I don't think that this should be a reason to change the vacation rules.
If the rules are changed however, this should not happen until the beginning of next year with the new vacation period.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-23 15:16:30)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
So if I understand correctly the argument against vacation is wanting the flag to fall to win in a position they couldn't otherwise hope to win.
Daniel Parmet (2013-03-26 00:00:47)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I was just translating Kieran Moore's complaint into the actual problem with vacation. People are complaining that vacation is preventing them for winning on time in a drawn position.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-04-21 00:44:14)
Poker rating anomaly
Hello Attila,
This is not an anomaly... this is the 10 moves rule! At least 10 moves must have been played by both players so that the winner's rating increases. This rule prevents several things, e.g. effects of early forfeits, unnatural wins and obvious cheating. This is classified as an unnatural win. Sorry about that, but this rule is necessary.
Scott Nichols (2013-04-23 00:39:31)
!!! The Next world chess Champion !!!
Carlsen is in a class by himself, much the same as Fischer was in the late 60's and early 70's. Anand had a tremendous talent, but the years do take there toll. I predict not only a win by Carlsen, but a shattering of Anand's ego and will leave no doubt in the world of chess, finally the questions will be answered.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-07 13:17:57)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
As you may know, Eros Riccio won the 8th FICGS chess championship by beating Jeroen Van Assche (who remains undeafeated though, he did not lose a single chess game at FICGS yet) in the candidates final, preventing him to play Eros again in the final.
Eros kindly accepted to answer a few questions:
- Hello Eros. First of all, congratulations for winning this 8th FICGS correspondence chess championship. Once again, you did not even have to play the 12 games match to defend your title as you won the qualifying tournament. In these conditions, the challenge was really tough for Jeroen Van Assche, in despite of his prodigious chess. He had to beat you consecutively in the candidates final (8 games match), then in the final (12 games match). How did things go in this candidates final?
Eros: Hi Thibault, thanks again! I was also worried to have to play a very strong player like Van Assche, but fortunately I had again the advantage that all draws were enough to win, and so my strategy was again not to take risks in all my games. As White it was easy... and surprisingly also as Black. The only game where I had to be more careful than others was this one: 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qf3 h6 8.Be3 Qc7 9.0-0-0 Nbd7 10.Qg3 b5 11.a3 Rb8. Here Jeroen surprised me with an interesting novelty, 12.Kb1. The two times I had played this position I was White against Gueci and Kruse, and in both games I continued with 12.Bxb5 but couldn't get more than a draw. The idea of 12.Kb1 is to sacrifice a Pawn for the initiative after 12...b4 13.axb4 Rxb4 14.Nb3 Nxe4. The White Bishops are very strong after 15.Nxe4 Rxe4 16.Bd3 Ra4 17.Bd4 and fully compensate the Pawn less. Anyway I managed to defend, and when I was finally able to trade the Queens we agreed for the Draw.
- You also won the ICCF Umansky Memorial a few weeks ago, the italian correspondence chess championship (again) as well, obviously you played numerous games last year, what do you plan for the next months? By the way, Jeroen already qualified for the candidates final of the 9th cycle, meaning that he may play you in the final match next year if you defend your title again, is there a chance that we can see a revenge?
Eros: Yes, like in the past, also last year I have played a lot of games... anyway for the future I am planning to reduce my games a lot. At the moment, except a few games in minor tournaments, I am only playing for the italian colors at the Olympiads and European Championship, for ICCF. I didn't register for the new Italian Championship this time... I prefer to wait that another individual top ICCF Tournament starts. And of course I am also waiting to meet my next challenger for the FICGS Final! Maybe it will be Van Assche again, we have to see if he beats his opponent in the semifinal (actually next candidates final).
- It looks like a few chess engines reached a certain maturity, I mean algorithms. As a consequence, the computer speed may become the major evolution factor during the next years, that is generally slower than the program's improvements (but the future may have surprises, of course). What do you expect from the computer chess world in the next few years and its impact on correspondence chess?
Eros: As I have already said in a previous interview, being chess probably a draw with perfect play, the more engines get stronger, the more draws we will see. That's quite obvious.
- You probably do not play chess over the board so often, yet you have a quite good ELO! (about 2200, while many correspondence chess masters are rated below 2000 or not rated at all) By the way, I can certify that you are a strong blitz player after we met a few years ago. Do you still play tournaments?
Eros: I am not playing otb chess for a few years, my peak was 22... and a few points, I don't remember exactly. One of the main reasons why I stopped is because later, when analyzing my games with an engine... every time I got frustrated a lot seeing all the blunders I was making.
- Do you estimate that playing OTB chess is good to improve at correspondence chess?
Eros: Yes, it's useful especially if you develop a strategical style, then also in your corr. games you can see more easily "long-term-strategy" plans, which is still the "weakest strenght" in all engines.
- Do you feel that you're still improving at correspondence chess? If yes, is it mainly a question of opening book or something else?
Eros: Improving at corr. chess... hmm... I will surprise you with my thought about this matter! I think I can evaluate my strenght according to the speed of the computer I am analyzing my games with. When I bought this computer, 3 years ago, I felt like I could beat the corr. World Champion. Now... as my computer is becoming older and older, I feel like my play is getting weaker each day it passes. So my answer is that I am still getting worse at corr. chess, not improving.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-07 13:18:49)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
A quite surprising last answer, indeed :)
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-07 18:10:04)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
More questions please :). Congratulations!
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-08 22:05:53)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Not so easy to find good questions... particularly for the same player after the 3rd or 4th time in a row :)
Daniel Parmet (2013-05-09 03:13:24)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
But you did anyways Thib! Great interview.
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;
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-09 17:57:09)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros just told me that he will try to answer all questions (by FICGS players) in this discussion... so if you have any idea to try to discover his secrets, please just ask! :)
Eros Riccio (2013-05-09 18:57:45)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Thib, let me start pointing out that I have no secrets except one: Luck. It accompanied me throughout these FICGS WCHs.
So guys don't ask me to reveal my "secrets", as I have none!
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-10 12:25:55)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
1. How many man-hours do you spend on your games particularly how many hours on your move? Do you spend countless hours over it?
2. What are the top 3 engines you find useful on your CC games.
Thanks and More power to you!
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.
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-10 12:28:20)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
lol!
Eros Riccio (2013-05-10 16:09:30)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
you know, Thib, I have always wondered why corr. chess is so easy for me. As I said, human chess is a completely different story, I feel like a beginner there, blundering at almost every move. But at corr. chess, with the help of the computer, things become extremely easy. I don't know why not everyone using a computter too is not nearly unbeatable as I am. maybe they use weak engines? Slow processors? Maybe they let their engine analyze the position only for a few minutes? I came to the conclusion that it must be something like that, otherwise everyone would play at GM Level by just analyzing for a decent amount of time with houdini on a fast processor. My conclusion is that I have more success than most other players because they don't take corr. chess too seriously, they probably have some better interests and only take corr. chess as a fun hobby.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-10 16:29:52)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Hi Alvin:
1) It depends on the position. Deciding a move may take from a few seconds to many days. My longest thought was 64 days for a move, in a decisive game of a past Italian Championship, the move was so hard for me that I also used the 30 days leave in order not to exceed the time limits for a single move. If someone is curious, it's move 40...Rh3 of the game Baiocchi - Riccio 0-1, 57 Italian Championship, played in 2007. Back then, after all my analysis with many different engines, I found out that Hiarcs was the engine that understood better than all the others that endgame, so I sticked to it mostly and its suggestions rewarded me with a win that allowed me to become Italian Champion.
2)The top 2 engines, which I usually use (and consider about equal) in infinite analysis at the same time with 3 cores each on my 6 cores computer are houdini 3 and deeprybka 4.1. Then come all the others, hard to pick a third place, probably critter or stockfish, depending on positions (stockfish is very strong in endgames, critter in tactical positions)
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-10 16:55:50)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Thanks for sharing this information and the other one in RF (very old stuff). It's a very good model in every CC player's tool box.
Garvin Gray (2013-05-11 15:20:04)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros, how do you think you would go in events with shorter time controls?
Attila Ba (2013-05-11 16:56:56)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Do you ever overrule the engine? ( I mean, have you ever made a move which was considered inferior by the engine. )
Are you willing to make moves suggested by opening books even if there valued less then optimal by the engine?
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-11 17:06:49)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros answers are always very informative. I have not seen any other person who shares at this level.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-11 17:08:42)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Garvin,
the speed of the pc is much more important for events with shorter time controls. The shorter the event, the fastest the pc is important. I don't know how short you mean with shorter, if you mean very much shorter, like freestyle games, 60 min + 15 sec, I did great there, while I have never tried time controls like 1 or a few days per move... I don't think I would do bad there too anyway.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-11 17:32:04)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Attila,
sometimes it happens that I play a move that is not the first suggestion of the (supposed) best engine. Anyway I usually use more than one engine for analysis and it may happen that they all suggest different best moves, so it's not always easy to say what is a best move, also because even if you analyze with one engine only it may change his best move if you give it more thinking time.
Anyway it happens very rarely that I play a move which is not in the top 3 houdini suggested moves.
As for the second question, yes, I would trust (not always of course) a good opening book, as if the book has a good score with that move it means that it contains games which led to wins. It also depends on the quality of those games, but a good quality book should contain high-level games, so why not trust it?
Garvin Gray (2013-05-12 01:25:35)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
I was referring to a time control like 30 days initial plus 1 hour per move increment
Eros Riccio (2013-05-12 01:55:59)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Ok, I have never played that time control. I think that would be a little too fast for my tastes, as I am used to take some long pauses between the moves quite often.
That's one reason why I have never joined the WBCCC Tournaments on rybka forum, as they had that kind of time control.
Garvin Gray (2013-05-13 17:08:14)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
I was seeing if you would be interested in playing in WBCCC 2014 :)
Daniel Parmet (2013-05-15 15:09:03)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros,
What is the most number of games you played at once? Is there a number of games you feel maximizes your ability (IE does not spread your concentration too thin)?
Eros Riccio (2013-05-15 15:29:16)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Hi Daniel,
in the past I have been playing something like 100 games at the same time. That was my maximum, and I really felt some pressure with that quantity of games, and I also felt that my overall play was reduced quite a lot. Anyway that happened when I still had a low ICCF rating, so playing many games back then was a good idea in order to raise my elo quickly. Playing so many games now that I am over 2600 wouldn't be such a good idea anymore, as with almost every draw I would lose points (not to count the losses!) because I would likely have a higher rating than most of my opponents.
Everyone has his own limit of games, but a thing seems logical for everyone: the more you play the more your quality of play is reduced. I think I can handle up to 50 games at the same time without a big loss of quality of play, and without feeling much pressure. Above that number, things would become difficult for me. Anyway it's very possible that, as at the moment I am only playing 16 games, (all for iccf) even playing (only) 30 games would give me some pressure. I am getting old :-)
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-15 17:26:47)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
You lose some games, how did you feel about it? Can you give us some samples games that you lost and you did your very best. Seems your invincible!
Attila Ba (2013-05-15 17:41:52)
Deep analysis - can it be improved?
The idea behind deep analysis is to store engine evaluations of chess positions in a permanent way and build an analysis tree out of them. Deep analysis is an improvement over simple engine analysis in two ways:
1) Permanent storage of analysis results makes them reusable. You don't have to analyse the same position from scratch over and over again (which is a waste of valuable CPU resources) rather you can build and improve upon your earlier results.
2) The search is configurable. You have control over which positions are examined and in what way. This gives you freedom to tailor the analyis to your own needs not having to rely on the defaults provided by your engine.
This idea is presented in a revolutionary way in the Deep Rybka Aquarium GUI. However using this framework I have encountered some problems. The lesser one and non lethal one is that draws by repetition are not handled correctly. This is for a reason: moves in the transposition table should be valued in an absolute way (regardless of the line which lead to them) in order to preserve the integrity of the tree. Since Aquarium has no means to incorporate lines, it simply ignores them
My other problem is that though the search is configurable I'm not absolutely certain about what is going on. It is not entirely clear to me exactly which nodes are selected for analysis.
These problems made me to try to come up with a deep analyis program of my own. After several failed attempts finally I have on my hand a solution which is not only capable of performing deep analysis but overcomes some of the difficulties of Interactive Deep Analyis (IDeA) provided by the Aquarium framework.
First I introduced a mechanism that can handle repetitions. In order to achieve this I attribute not one but two scores to each move and re-define the concept of root position already present in IdeA. The first score which I call 'idea' score is the same as presented in IdeA. The second is what I call 'alpha' score is calculated by minimaxing the tree from the root position taking into account repetitions.
Consider the following game:
1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 Nf8
The value of move 2. ... Nf8 at depth 18 by Houdini 3.0 is -19 centipawns. So the idea score of this move at depth 0 should be -19. Yet 2. ... Nf8 repeats the starting position. Therefore its alpha score with respect to a root equaling the starting position should be 0 centipawn which is exactly what my program calculates for it. ( For the sake of simplicity I don't require threefold repetition, since you would never allow your opponent to repeat a position if you have better ideas. )
So when my programs lists the tree it will present both scores for every move (which in most of the cases are equal of course - therefore this is mostly an aesthetic improvement rather than being a substantial one).
The improvement which I'm most interested in is that having full control of node selection now I have freedom to shape the tree search.
In order to keeps things simple I have only three parameters characterising the search:
1) engine depth
2) move distance (centipawns)
3) search depth
Engine depth means a fixed depth at which each move is analyzed. After long experimenting I have arrived at depth 18 as a good default for Houdini 3.0.
Move distance is a tolerance up to which moves are allowed into the analyis. For each position first the best move is determined. The search for alternative moves is continued until a move is found that has a valuation less than the valuation of the best move by 'move distance' centipawns (it is this 'distance' away from being the best move). The tree is then expanded for moves within 'move distance'.
To compensate for exponential growth of analyzed nodes I use a simple technique: at each ply after ply 1 the move distance is halved. So if the move distance at ply 0 and ply 1 is 20 centipawns, it will be 10 centipawns for ply 2, 5 centipawns for ply 3 and so on. This means that at greater depth less and less moves are allowed per position. So the analysis with greater depth slowly evolves into 'autoplay' rather than 'tree search'.
The other method to reduce exponential growth is the well known beta cut provided by alphabeta search. In order that all candidate moves in the root position and all candidate responses to them get proper values, I only allow beta cuts with ply 2 and deeper.
Once an alphabeta search of certain depth is carried out, the whole tree is mimimaxed out for the root. Now the initial evaluations of the root moves may change. This may make moves which initially fall out of the 'move distance' to become viable. So the search has to be repeated for those moves as well. This has to be done at every ply level.
My iterative search at a certain depth only ends when no new nodes are added by the alphabeta search (the tree is 'settled' for this depth). Only then the program is allowed to deepen the search (this I call 'refined' search).
With engine depth of 18 and move distance of 10 centipawns an average position can be analyzed to depth 10 within a matter of hours. This means a couple of hundred (possibly a couple of thousand) positions are analyzed to depth 18. Depth 10 deep analyis means an ultimate depth of 28 if you take into account that the engine depth is 18.
Whether this method has added ELO value over simple engine search is yet to be tested.
Eros Riccio (2013-05-15 18:09:28)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
I started playing corr. chess in 2000 and I (should, but maybe I lost a few games) have played 780 games. Most of them were draws (447). I lost 10 games as White and 13 as Black. My latest defeat as White was in 2005 against Gino Figlio, many of you know him as he plays here too, while as Black my latest defeat was in 2009 on this server against Alberto Gueci.
How I felt when I lost? I forgot! That happened too long ago ;-P
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-15 18:20:08)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
lol, you definitely forgot it. :)
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-15 18:23:15)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Whats your best games so far? against of course top opposition.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-15 18:24:16)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
2005 is like an eternity ago, but I feel it would be a public interest source to publish this game (Riccio-Figlio) here :)
Eros Riccio (2013-05-15 18:41:10)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Here is the game where Gino kicked me, it was played on a server called "Chessfriend.com":
[Event "AT-2005-0-00273"]
[Site "Chessfriend.com"]
[Date "2005.08.18"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Riccio, Eros"]
[Black "Figlio, Gino"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B97"]
[WhiteElo "2480"]
[BlackElo "2154"]
[PlyCount "112"]
[EventDate "2005.??.??"]
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 d6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 a6 6. Bg5 e6 7. f4 Qb6 8. Nb3
Be7 9. Qf3 Nbd7 10. O-O-O Qc7 11. Bd3 b5 12. Rhe1 b4 13. Ne2 Bb7 14. Kb1 Nc5
15. Nxc5 dxc5 16. c4 O-O 17. g4 a5 18. Bxf6 Bxf6 19. g5 Be7 20. Qe3 a4 21. h4
Rfd8 22. h5 Rd7 23. Rd2 Qc6 24. Ng3 b3 25. a3 Bd8 26. Rdd1 Ba5 27. Rg1 Rad8 28.
Ka1 Qd6 29. Ne2 Ba6 30. e5 Qc6 31. g6 fxg6 32. hxg6 h6 33. f5 Bxc4 34. Nf4 Bxd3
35. fxe6 Rd4 36. e7 Re8 37. Nxd3 Rxe7 38. Nxc5 Rxd1+ 39. Rxd1 Qxg6 40. Qd4 Kh7
41. Nxa4 Qc2 42. Qd3+ Qxd3 43. Rxd3 Bc7 44. Rxb3 Bxe5 45. Nb6 g5 46. Nd5 Rd7
47. Ne3 h5 48. Kb1 Kg6 49. a4 h4 50. a5 Kh5 51. Kc2 h3 52. Nf1 Kh4 53. Ra3 Rf7
54. Ra1 g4 55. a6 Bd4 56. Kd3 Ba7 {White resigns.; Enddate: 12/3/2005} 0-1
Eros Riccio (2013-05-15 18:55:23)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
I have problems in evaluating chess games, how can you say if a game is good or not? To my taste, "unusual" games are the best ones. The one I am publishing is one of the first games I played, back in 2001. After a "unusual" Hyppo-Defence, it was amazing how the Black pieces coordinated for an incredible kingside attack. This is probably my favorite game:
[Event "18 C.I.M."]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2001.02.01"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Calzolari, Mario (PG)"]
[Black "Riccio"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B06"]
[WhiteElo "2107"]
[BlackElo "2025"]
[PlyCount "76"]
[EventDate "2002.11.26"]
1. e4 g6 2. d4 Bg7 3. Nc3 d6 4. Nf3 a6 5. a4 b6 6. Bc4 e6 7. O-O Ne7 8. Re1 O-O
9. Bf4 h6 10. Qd2 Kh7 11. Rad1 Bb7 12. h3 Nd7 13. Re2 Nf6 14. Rde1 g5 15. Bh2
Ng6 16. d5 e5 17. b4 Qd7 18. b5 a5 19. Bb3 Rg8 20. Kh1 Nf4 21. Bxf4 gxf4 22.
Qd3 Nh5 23. Rg1 Bf6 24. Ree1 Rg6 25. Nb1 Rag8 26. c4 Bc8 27. Nbd2 Qd8 28. c5
Bh4 29. Ref1 bxc5 30. Qc3 Ng3+ 31. fxg3 Rxg3 32. Qc2 Bxh3 33. Rf2 Bg4 34. Rb1
Bxf3 35. Nxf3 Rxf3 36. Rxf3 Bg3 37. Kg1 Qh4 38. Qd1 Qh2+ 0-1
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-15 19:03:28)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Easier to watch this way...
... a funny game, indeed :)
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-15 19:38:55)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Classic hippo setup. You played like a real virtuoso of hippo. Very nice game :)
Mladen Jankovic (2013-05-16 08:33:48)
PGN notation for forfeit, loss on time
There is no such notation in the standard. The standard specifies that a checkmate move should end with '#', instead of '+', as is standard here for other reasons. So if someone wins without checkmating it would be easy to understand what hapened.
You have another problem, any draw would, due to the mechanics of the site, be a draw accepted, as the server does not track 3-fold repetition and such (I might be mistaken).
You have another problem, as the moves are contained in a single line, while the standard specifies 255 character maximum (including newline), and recommends 80 character maximum, for compatibility with older software.
While I have not encountered any problems with that, and nobody so far complained, it still is a break from the standard.
The best place to look for how PGN should work is the standard itself: http://www6.chessclub.com/help/PGN-spec
Garvin Gray (2013-05-17 07:43:26)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Which way Thib? I see only the notation.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-19 21:00:05)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Do you have Flash activated in your browser Garvin? (application is ChessFlash)
Garvin Gray (2013-05-20 14:23:01)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
I looked up chessflash, but could not see a pc type download. Only for mobiles by the looks of it.
So I am so confused. What do you mean by flash in this context?
Alvin Alcala (2013-05-20 20:04:36)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Just use chrome browser.
Garvin Gray (2013-05-21 00:56:06)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
I already do
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2013-05-21 22:05:24)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Garvin you have adobe flash player installed? if you do you should see a replayable board with arrows and the game notation
Jeroen Van Assche (2013-05-21 22:16:19)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Garvin, to the far right of the address bar, maybe a shield is displayed. Click on it and then click Load unsave script.
To Eros, congrats again. I definitely need to improve my opening play if I ever want to beat you.
Thibault de Vassal (2013-05-22 01:22:46)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
By the way, I didn't see the Riccio-Figlio game... here it is:
Garvin Gray (2013-05-22 16:29:35)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
From - Jeroen Van Assche
Garvin, to the far right of the address bar, maybe a shield is displayed. Click on it and then click Load unsave script.
Bingo, now I can see the diagrams. Thank you Jeroen.
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 (2013-06-05 20:16:22)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
If you
1. Prevent people from logging in and viewing their games while on vacation then they cant use vacation time to analyze changes in their games. This may not stop vacation abuse but it would make it less convenient.
2. Garvin Gray said "Instead of changing the minimum days for vacation ... how about there is a maximum cap for the number of times a person can take vacation"
I like this suggestion better than all others i read here.
So limit vacation to 45 days to be split as chosen by users into a maximum of maybe 20 blocks? So you could take 1 day or 5 but you cant take 1 day at a time 45 times. I suspect that 99.99% of legitimate vacation needs would not be negatively impacted by this sort of system.
I know this is a couple months old now.. just catching up. :)
Daniel Parmet (2013-06-06 14:47:11)
Playing activity top 20 players
I know I don't count as one of these "higher rated players." But I have purposefully curtailed my activity here in favor of ICCF. The reason for my decision is because all the rules here are slanted against preventing a person from playing stronger players. The WCH is a perfect example; 2200's are given a free ride to the next stage while a 2150 has to play stage 1 as top seed where he will lose 35 points while WINNING the stage. So never having the opportunity to improve anymore here has forced me to find places where I can achieve that goal.
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.
Garvin Gray (2013-06-08 04:30:30)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I think Robert Knighton has explained one of the issues regarding this issue very well. In that a player can use the vacation time to gain a time advantage, and another player who had to take vacation legitimately ie this would normally involve taking a few days to 14 days with no game analysis.
The legit vacationer gains no advantage from having taken vacation time, except they avoided timing out, which is of benefit to everyone in the long run.
The second reason why the current situation is undesirable is that it encourages players to not get on with their games. They can run their clocks down to almost zero, knowing they can use an unlimited amount of 1 day vacations to save their games. Playing inside the allocated time controls is part of the game.
Vacation time is for a reason and is not there to be abused to allow players to avoid timing out.
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.
Sebastian Boehme (2013-06-25 03:01:04)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros, do you sometimes still use your old dual core for analysis? ;-)
Alvin Alcala (2013-06-29 11:18:05)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Good question!
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.
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...
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;
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.
Ilmars Cirulis (2013-08-04 18:53:40)
Gossip about Evans gambit
Thibault de Vassal (2013-10-08 11:57:05)
Kasparov candidate for FIDE president
Is Kasparov back in the chess world?
"Six winning moves" is his program and obviously money is the key.
Do you think he has a chance to unseat 18-year incumbent Kirsan Ilyumzhinov in this 2014 election?
http://www.chessbase.com/Home/TabId/211/PostId/4011444/kasparov-for-president--2014-fide-campaign-081013.aspx
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.
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.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-11-19 09:04:17)
World chess championship Anand / Carlsen
When the match started I thought that if Anand got ahead it would be a tough match but if Carslen got ahead there would be no way back for Anand. I have not seen much to change that view.
I admire Carlsen greatly and particularly his endgame ability but this has not been the most interesting match so far. Yes he set challenging problems where others would have given up, but Anand's mistakes have been too serious to make the wins seem really deserved.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-11-21 18:38:54)
World chess championship Anand / Carlsen
Yes, looks familiar Thib. Interesting choice indeed. Carlsen played really solidly in game 8 and then this sharp line in game 9.
By the way, I wasn't really convinced about Ra2. I know the idea - swing it over to e2 or f2 but in the lines I looked at it never got there without a lot of simplications first.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-05 01:44:30)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open
Entries for WBCCC 2014 are now open at www.rybkaforum.net.
For those not aware of our event, quite a few of the players here can speak about their experiences in the event, but as organiser I can say that many of the regular players have gotten a lot out of their participation, have improved their play and a lot has been learnt about freestyle correspondence chess in the three years that this event has been running.
Prize money is offered, but how much is determined by players and others willingness to sponsor.
Feel free to contact me by replying to this message, sending me a pm at rybka forum or private message here. A private message here is the least reliable.
Full tournament rules:
1) Tournament will be single round robin, meaning every person will play each other once.
2) A players seed position will be determined by their order of entry. The earlier you enter, the higher your number. The first person to enter will receive number 1. The seed position determines which number a player is in the round robin.
3) Entries open December 1 2013
4) Entries close January 6 2014
5) Play begins January 13 2014
6) Each round will be paired at the start of the event, with the pairings for the entire year published at the start.
7) Each round will have a maximum of four games, most likely two games (just like 2011, 2012 and 2013). The number of games will always be kept to a bare minimum
8) There will be a maximum of six paired rounds.
9) The minimum time control will be 30 days plus 1 hour per move. If the number of games per round needs to increase from 2 to 3 or 4, the time control will be lengthened. For instance, if we have 21 players, so needing 4 games per round to keep the number of games even and use five rounds, instead of the six rounds in 2013.
9) Pairings for future rounds are subject to change due to withdrawal of players and unforeseen circumstances.
10) If a player withdraws, or their games time out without an explanation that is accepted by the arbiter, all their games will be removed from the event. In effect they are no longer a participant in the event and no effect on the final placings.
11) There will be an official entry form that all players will be required to fill out before their entry will be accepted. This is so in case of emergency the organisers have a method of contact outside of Rybka Forum. It will include also include a person other than yourself to contact. Whilst I understand this might seem unnecessary to some, I do hope that events from 2013 (death of Salvador Signes and our inability to get in contact with the family) do show the need for better communication methods.
12) Xfccplay- Xfccplay is the official software provided for WBCCC 2014. Xfccplay is provided for the free use for participants whilst in the event. A user name and password will be provided once registered. Also download instructions will be provided by private message and these must be followed to install the program. The program is provided by chessok and is not to be passed on to anyone and is provided for the sole use of playing in WBCCC. All moves, draw offers etc in WBCCC 2014 must be played on this software.
13) New entrants will be required to play a couple of test games on xfccplay before entries close so that the arbiter is certain that all players are familiar with the software and its features. The organisers do not want to see players withdrawing after the event has begun because they find that they are unfamiliar with the software and get upset because their clock is running. Entries are open from December 1 to January 6. That is over a month to become familiar with the software. The organisers will not accept entries from players who have not tested the software.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-20 15:18:41)
WBCCC 2014 Entries Open
Entries are now at seventeen. More ficgs players wanted. If you know someone from another site who might be interested, please contact me.
1. Garvin GRAY GARVIN GRAY
2. Om PRAKASH MASTER OM
3. Scott NICHOLS SCOTT
4. George CLEMENT KEOKI010
5. Nikolaos SARAKENIDIS TRANDISM
6. Djordje KASABASIC ARMAGEDDON
7. Paul WATSON NATIONAL12
8. Matt O'BRIEN SCHACHMATT
9. Carlo ALTIERI ITACA2
10. Mark ELDRIDGE MARK ELDRIDGE
11. David EVANS DAVID EVANS
12. Neel BASANT NEELBASANT
13. Timothy COOKSON WEIRWINDLE
14. Ruben COMES RUBEN COMES
15. Erik VAREND DEKA
16. Jose SANZ PPIPPER
17. Michael GLATTHAAR DONKASAND
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.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-24 11:01:28)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Josef: I would prefer not to talk much about unrated events. In terms of priorities for players, unrated events will always be last. So they will be shuffled to the end.
So time priorities for unrated games can always be excused as they are given the least amount of time after, in rough order of importance:
WCH games
Divisions where you have a chance of a norm
Divisions where you have a chance of winning, so win a prize
Division where you can gain points.
Games where you are doing well, which is a vague criteria.
And then everything after that.
As a key supporter and one of the original creator of the standard open events, I would like to see those change to rapid time control from now on. Most of the players in those divisions rarely would need all the time that is offered.
It would also mean more cycles could move quicker.
Garvin Gray (2013-12-27 17:23:41)
FICGS Facebook app in question
Facebook is a very good medium and does not have to be 'spammy'. People have the ability to control what other see by controlling their settings.
The group admin can also decide who is able to enter a group, either by having the group as open or closed group.
Since pinterest was a bust, and I think facebook is the way to go, this idea should certainly be advanced.
I can see possibilities where it could help not just ficgs, but other sites as well as there are going to be players on facebook who are from other sites who are not on ficgs.
So I think it has the potential to be a win all round.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-12-30 10:00:31)
Ficgs World Championship 13
I am not sure that having lots of games starting at exactly the same time is really the problem. Having lots of them running simultaneously seems to be the issue to me and I don't see how that can be avoided without slowing down the world championship cycles.
I'll recount my own recent experience. I had a cycle 12 quarter final starting 2/7/13 and a cycle 11 semi-final starting 3/7/13. That I could manage OK. Then I had a cycle 10 round robin final starting 29/7/13. This gave 26 games and I did find this quite a strain. I don't think that overall it was any better than if the round robin had started at the beginning of July. Yes I had nearly a month with only 16 games, but on the other hand some of those 16 games were reaching difficult points and requiring lots of time when I had to start the extra 10.
If the round robin final had been started in say September or October then it would have been easier for me but that seems to be introducing an unacceptable delay.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-11-26 09:36:07)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Btw, here is the link to the gsame where I won against a KG with Nf3: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=137701&auto=1&flip=1
Garvin Gray (2014-02-15 08:59:20)
Standard time control abusers
Ok, I have long had enough of this and since Thib believes that everything is a ok, it is time to start naming the abusers and their actions.
Perhaps that will force Thib to start taking action against these people, because I, for at least one player, have had a bloody gutful of this player wasting my life.
The player concerned is: Mariusz Maciej Broniek and the game in question is: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=71232
He has repeatedly made all his moves in the last 5 days of the time control, then let his time run down to the 5 days and then made another 10 moves and rinse-repeat and will do it again.
Mariusz is clearly able to move faster, but is deciding to 'game' the time control in an attempt to either annoy the S*** out of me, or hope that I will resign.
The significance of this game is that whoever wins, wins the tourney and all the e points, totalling 48 e points. I am +10 ahead and it is time Thibault stepped in and put a stop to this behaviour.
Either Thibault applies the 'bringing the game into disrepute rule' against players like this, by firstly giving a warning and then declaring the game lost, or Thibault makes it clear he stands on the side of those who seek to abuse and 'game' the time control and does not give a stuff about the lives of the members who they continue to stuff over.
Scott Nichols (2014-02-15 15:42:10)
Standard time control abusers
I share your sentiments Garvin. I have, and still am playing many of these guys. It seems that they want to win points by extending the game as long as possible and hope to win by the other player either quits, gives gup chess, or dies. Another problem is players who reach a dead lost position, even one move before mate and then just quit moving altogether.
Garvin Gray (2014-02-25 11:36:55)
Standard time control abusers
Broniek is now down to seven days in my game against him and has 9 moves to make. I have no doubt that he will make the time control, then will sit on the game for another 35 days.
Thanks Thibault for wasting my life like this.
You have a choice, you can either be on the side of the abusers or the victims. It is clear which side you are choosing. At the clear cost of the site.
I know why most people are not commenting and this because they are scared to offend you, even though they hate behaviour like this. Instead they just do not participate in the events.
I have noticed that no one is promoting ficgs anymore. Perhaps it is because the members have grown tired of seeing a site admin allowing members to act in manners like this and not being held to account for it.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-01 03:29:31)
Standard time control abusers
And once again your response is to sit on your hands and do nothing. That is your clear response all the time to this major issue.
You ask for solutions, some of us attempt to offer solutions, you reject them. You ask for other sites rules, we offer them, you reject them saying they won't work. It is clear that you have no intention of doing anything about this and that you really believe that allowing my life to be wasted is acceptable, well I don't and I am sure the others who are trapped in this same situation do not.
I really do not understand how you can think it is acceptable to allow your members to have their lives wasted by players who are clearly just acting out of spite?
Your actions are really against the best interests of this site. I know as the site administrator that is a big call, but I really do feel it is the right call to make.
When you side with the abusers and not the victims, that is what happens.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 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 :)
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 :)
Alvin Alcala (2014-04-11 16:26:41)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014
I had my chance on the penultimate (round 28). Anson was leading by 1/2 point, however, he managed to win his game while my game was a draw thus at the end of the tour he was 1 point ahead of me.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 09:09:36)
Standard time control abusers
Hi all,
I am suffering a player abusing of time control ... he has waiting for 29 days for playing one move and then alternating one move / one day of vacation.
I read all comments on this post and i do agree with both of you (Garvin and Thibault) on main points.
Basically thibault you're wright but maybe you will reconsider your position by looking at it with new eyes :
- In the current WCH at least 6 players are using this ''technic'' : the Pech family (Stepan, Matej, Jaroslav and Jarsolav senior), Pechova and Mach
- They all coming from Czech Republic
So what i think : it is only one player (and i am sure you can check that with IP connection). That player is not interrested in winning elo and is stupid by using the same country.
It is not a person interested by chess it is only someone who want bad on FICGS : and that the point you can use for banning him.
Obviously, I am not sure of what i wrote and in theory i do not agree with writing names of the guilty ... but in that case i think you should consider that guy like a hacker and not like a chess player using a stupid technic for winning elo.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 09:34:42)
Standard time control abusers
Just to precise my point :
- Evoluting rules is a good thing and the fact in implies evoluting cheats is also a good thing ( :-) )
- Allowing one day vacation should be authorized vhen too many moves to play
--> If there is a proof (IP connection or date when vacation are taken in my ''6 players case'') we must consider that we are not in a possible case of correspondance chess.
I am sure it does not happen that often.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 13:20:16)
Standard time control abusers
okidoki ...
Reasons for ban can be fuzzy i do agree, and i think not in a ''fair play spirit''.
I should have spoken about withdrawal or something else ... whatever i am intersting in playing chess and i always intend to play my Pech's game normally.
It can even be fun to play like that : the challenge is to win by time !!! :-)
In fact i wanted to pointed out that there is maybe different ways than changing rules to avoid time abusers. It's been a long time that i did not seriously play chess, and i am not an expert in cc ... but i am thinking that the actual time rules (combined to the moves interface) are simply really good ...
As a server manager you can find out material evidence of time abusing ( even if it is not as simple as i say ) and a cheater will always find a way to cheat on new rules.
Garvin Gray (2014-04-29 09:35:01)
Reduction in max days available? (move)
Thib, each sport, should review its rules and conducts every once in a while to see if it is operating to best of its ability for the maximum enjoyment of the membership.
When looking through the rules and thinking about some of the issues here, I noticed that we do have the 60 day maximum play rule, which seems extra-ordinarily long.
That type of time (2 months) is a throwback to the days of email or even postal play, and in my opinion, is way to long for acceptable server play.
I still believe 30 days is the right time frame, but others have proposed 40 and so I am happy to abide by the majority if it gets the time shortened.
What I am concerned about and possibly trying to achieve a little bit, is that it is not acceptable for players to allow their games just to remain in limbo for an unlimited amount of time.
If a person can not make one move in each of their games on this site in 40 days, then perhaps they should be reviewing their participation. It is not fair on their opponents who have to wait around for them and it is not good for the site as a whole which needs games finishing for accurate and reliable ratings.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-05-13 23:01:16)
Class A, class M & class SM closed
It is now about 70 days that these waiting lists are closed, time to make a point.
The situation was the following on march 2 : "Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three"
Now, Rapid SM 12 has one player , rapid M 72 (one started) has two players & rapid A 161 (three started) has one.
However only one player rated above 2200 entered the Rapid M tournament that started, and another one the current waiting list. On the other hand, respectively 2, 3 & 4 players rated above 2000 entered the Rapid A tournaments.
My conclusion is that closing class SM & class M tournaments waiting lists was not really useful while it was more useful for class A. Finally, probably one or two rapid A would have started during this period if class A was not closed.
Of course the main problem remains the lack of new players.
I now re-open the class SM, M & A waiting lists. Let's see how it evolves.
Timofey Denisov (2014-05-16 16:39:39)
big chess pgn viewer?
and I think would be good to develop PGN converter FICGS notation to Winboard notation (squares a0 - p15 with letter i, short notation a la "common" chess).
Sample:
[Event "Edited game"]
[Site "CHESSPC"]
[Date "2014.05.10"]
[Round "-"]
[White "-"]
[Black "-"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "rnb1rbnqknbr1bnr/pppppppnnppppppp/7pp7/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/7PP7/PPPPPPPNNPPPPPPP/RNB1RBNQKNBR1BNR w KQkq - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]
{--------------
r n b . r b n q k n b r . b n r
p p p p p p p n n p p p p p p p
. . . . . . . p p . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . P P . . . . . . .
P P P P P P P N N P P P P P P P
R N B . R B N Q K N B R . B N R
white to play
--------------}
1. g3 d13 2. f3 Nh12 3. Njk2 m13 4. m3 Qn9 5. h3 Qxn1 6. Nn2 Qg8 7. e3 Bj8
8. f4 Bh9 9. Nj3 Nm14 10. Bk5 Nc13 11. Qo7 Nl12 12. Qxo14 n13 13. Qo4 Rpo15
14. Qg4 Qxg4 15. hxg4 Nk10 16. Nhi3 Ni9 17. Nc2 Ro7 18. d3 Nj7 19. Bl4 Rn7
20. l3 Ngi14 21. Ngh2 Bi8 22. e4 Ro15 23. Bo4 e13 24. Ni4 Be14
Garvin Gray (2014-06-24 05:17:57)
FICGS WCh results summary updated
Sorry to bring up an old topic, but it does show again that Eros Riccio has not actually won the World Championship match since the 4th cycle. All he has done is drawn the match.
The final match rules really do need to be re-written to make it more of a contest so the winner actually has to win the match.
It is thoroughly ridiculous that any one person is still champion after four drawn matches, without having won any of them. In some of them, not even winning a single game, IIRC.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-07-04 02:03:32)
FICGS WCh results summary updated
Garvin, it seems to me that this is only a question of definition: you win a chess game if you can take the king, or if your opponent runs out of time, or... and you win a championship if you fill certain conditions. Kramnik retained his title by this 7-7 against Leko in 2004 because it was defined this way. The question to know if it is ridiculous or not seems quite subjective.
@Timofey: 24 games would be a huge load of work. 12 games is quite a lot already and I'm not sure it would change anything. For example, Eros explained why he offered a draw in a probably winning position. Finally, we could change everything and make another ICCF but would it be useful or interesting when it already exists?
Garvin Gray (2014-07-08 17:01:05)
FICGS WCh results summary updated
Timofey: That format could result in more short draws as the players see it as a way to get through the early games faster.
The better format would be to have it as 12 games, but if one player is ahead after eight games have been concluded, the match is over.
The second idea would be to play an eight game match, and then if the result is 4-4, another four games are played.
That would encourage both players in the first eight games to try and win more games as they would know that agreeing to short draws does not shorten the match length, in fact it could lengthen it.
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!
Dimitrios Ropokis (2014-07-20 12:40:41)
Eros Riccio on his win in 8th chess WCH
Eros thank you! My best wishes to you!!
Nick Burrows (2014-08-25 13:11:47)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Here is a heads up, so you can avoid the same mistake I made.
I saw there was an available "gold" chess match against a player I thought I could beat, so I bought the required e-points and began the match. My opponent then played no moves and lost on time. I asked to cash-out my winnings. Thibault pointed out a rule in the small print that allows himself to claim the money that I had won.
I then asked for a refund of my money. Thibault refuses, because he is greedy and wants to earn 200 Euros for doing F*ck all. Now my money is trapped inside Ficgs.
*Buyer beware*
Nick Burrows (2014-08-26 20:06:27)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Garvin: This is the paragraph Thibault referred me to -
b) "When a player wins a tournament with an entry fee (not null) and prize, he can choose after the game(s) to keep E-Points (by default) instantly added in his FICGS account or, if he has E-Points enough in his account, a money prize. Entry fees and prizes in E-Points are published on the tournament page in "Waiting lists". If games in such a tournament have not been really played for a win, for example if a participant obviously lost quickly one or several games only to allow his opponent to get the money prize (and particularly if it happens several times), these tournaments will not be considered as win and the player showing this behaviour may lose his E-points involved in the tournament at the referee's discretion."
looking at it now, this doesn't even seem to cover my specific circumstance, as is this an instance of a player "not playing for a win"?
I always thought Thib was a nice guy, but his greed in this instance has really surprised me, and left a bad taste in my mouth.
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.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.
The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.
So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.
Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.
If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.
The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.
Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.
I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?
When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.
I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.
The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.
Nick Burrows (2014-08-31 14:40:39)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
If the conditions that FICGS operates under were explicit, why would any player ever buy e-points?
Pay 100 euros for a match that you may get to play after a long wait of many months. If you get an opponent, but he doesn't play moves; Ficgs keeps his 100 Euros. At no time can the e-points you bought be converted to cash unless you enter the above process, and win, when Ficgs will take 25% of your winnings.
Like a bad joke isn't it!
Perhaps a better business model would be one that gave attractive and fair conditions to the players; so that rather than stripping bare every victim you trick into the system, you have take less money from each player but with many, many more participants?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 16:36:03)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Once again Nick, you didn't buy a particular match, you bought Epoints without any certitude to play this match (that could have started without you, then you'd have asked a refund, I guess)...
And saying FICGS keeps Euros on this case is not exact, FICGS keeps Epoints just like those that are distributed in free tournaments prizes.
You seem not to realize that FICGS is not a casino and cannot be one. When you participate at a tournament over the board and cannot play the opponent you wanted to play, there is most probably no refund. If there is no other participant showing, there could be a refund (because no other match would be possible) but I doubt that you get the whole prize, nevertheless the tournament would probably keep some fees. That's quite the same spirit with this rule.
Finally, I think that players may want to buy Epoints to really play games and casually win and get a money prize. As explained in the rules, the 25% rake should be balanced with the results after a certain number of games. Things can go very fast with bullet or lightning games. If you really want to get a money prize, it can take a few hours after you find an opponent... Didn't you think about it?
About business models, believe me: FICGS is not a good one in France. I did not make it and I don't run it for money. By the way, as far as I know, even poker sites have difficulties under french laws.
Nick Burrows (2014-08-31 18:11:33)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
I bought E-points believing they would be instantly purchased, and I could instantly start the match. There was no warning it would take several hours - so I did buy them for the specific match.
It may not be "exact" or "technically correct" to say that Ficgs (you) keeps Euros; but it is "essentially" true, although you "technically" cannot admit that you are actually running a casino under a different name due to French law.
These games are NOT modeled on any o.t.b chess tournament in existence, but they ARE modeled EXACTLY on a heads-up poker match. Which are run by CASINO companies and who ALWAYS pay the winner (me) and pay your money back, when you request it.
No I did not consider playing bullet for money, as that is a pure hardware contest.
Dominique Geffroy (2014-09-04 21:58:31)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
1. I guess he obeys laws imposed on him without delving into the whys and hows of why they exist...
2. Well, the message I was trying to convey is that in the eye of the authorities and the regulator, a conversion of epoints to money triggered by a game which looks fixed is an open door to money laundering, and therefore ruled out. Regulator says: no risk, no money. If there was no move on the opponent's side, the regulator says there was no risk.
I nevertheless have to agree with you, as anyone with common sense would, that it is very convoluted and unfair, because you are obviously not a money launderer and you would deserve your reward. Such server rule therefore probably needs to be put forward much more clearly by the organisers, who have in my opinion absolutely no leeway in this respect (This forum post will probably useful for that).
So maybe there is greed, maybe you are right. I do not know this person and will neither launch an attack on his personal character, nor try a defense. But all I can say is that even if he was a benevolent benefactor of humanity, he would risk prison if he converted epoints to money following a not contested game.
Dura lex, sed lex.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-09-05 01:25:46)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
I must say that Dominique explained some things much better than I could... Thank you! On the second point, I guess that I'll have to deal repeatedly with this "doubt" for ever or for a moment as I tried to update the code for the prizes according to this rule but was not able to do it without making it too heavy, so I'll continue to take Epoints from winner's account each time in such situation before I rewrite the whole thing.
Finally I have to say that reasons for such rule remain at the same time fuzzy (I'm not able to justify it by specific points in the law - that is fuzzy itself) & personal because I want to avoid any risk and because I do think it's fair, which is subjective of course! As I already said, Epoints are taken there, others are offered there... So yes, I could have made another choice, I could even delete this rule (whatever it implies), you can think this is greed on this specific act, but at the end it fits the rules [in despite of the human factor at that time, which is now fixed] and that's the most important thing IMHO.
Nick Burrows (2014-09-08 16:11:10)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Well I find that to win a Gold chess game and end up with 100 Euros less than I started with extremely insulting.
Garvin Gray (2014-11-01 22:51:23)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess
There was no context other than a very simple request. With the new rules now in operation, I was asking where do we find a copy or further information on what changes have taken place for this event that flow on from the changes to the laws.
The areas I was mainly concerned with are in relation to:
5 consecutive repetition of moves and 75 moves without a pawn move or capture. The arbiter can now step and force the draw, there does not need to be a player claim.
So will the server be updated to match this? There are quite a few other changes as well where current server practices do not match the new rules.
But as I said, it is your responsibility to make sure that the competition complies with the new rules if you advertise that your tournament follows the fide laws of chess where possible.
The reason for my stance is a very simple one. Over the years, on almost every single occassion, when I have made suggestions or recommendations to you, you have gone in the opposite direction in pretty much 100 percent of cases. Or even when you have claimed to 'agree' with my recommendation, you have then given the trial period such a short time to make it practically worthless.
The last saga in relation with Nick Burrows said to me that, except for the wch, I will no longer be playing on this site.
I can tell you directly, your handling of that issue lost you a long time member.
On the format of the wch, if I actually thought this format was fair and even gave me a shot of winning it, rather than being so heavily biased in favour of Eros Riccio winning it every time, to the point of being fixed, then I would use that as sole motivation to win it.
Thibault de Vassal (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.
Alvin Alcala (2015-01-11 17:21:59)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH
Congrats!
Alexis Alban (2015-01-27 00:37:48)
Eros Riccio on his win in 9th chess WCH
Thanks for answering these questions Eros, it was a very interesting read. I hope someday I will be able to play for the FICGS Championship. For now I hope you two enjoy your match.
Scott Nichols (2015-03-09 09:29:18)
FICGS freestyle chess superstars
Wow, great article! Congrats to our players! I would have bet big on these superstars winning it all. I actually had a chance to play, but personal issues have kept me in la-la land the last few months. But it's going to be great fun going thru the pgn file slowly, :) Great job guys!
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.
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 (2015-05-15 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
Alvin Alcala (2015-05-15 03:49:21)
Alcala wins 1st Centaur Weekend Tourney
Thank you Thib! :)
To those who might get interested to join the remaining grand prix freestyle chess tour schedule is below.
Planned tour dates:
(Friday til Sunday)
CWT 2: June 5th - June 7th
CWT 3: July 3rd - July 5th
CWT 4: August 7th August 9th
CWT 5: September 4th September 6th
CWT 6: October 2nd October 4th
CWT 7: November 6th November 8th
CWT 8: December 4th - December 6th
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.
Peter W. Anderson (2015-07-02 16:20:58)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Yes, this could be a small but deep change. Perhaps some drawing opening lines would be less attractive because they will lead to stalemate. I see that as a good thing as it will lead to more fighting chess.
As nobody has objected perhaps it should be implemented :)
Peter W. Anderson (2015-07-05 17:16:00)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
The suggestion that Arno put forward in the article goes much further than what I was suggesting.
Under his suggestion a win could be outweighed by several stalemates. I am not in favour of this.
However, in my suggestion, stalemates would only be taken into account when a match is tied, so stalemates would never outweigh wins.
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-05 21:14:44)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck...
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-06 10:17:40)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
As Peter Anderson write: "It reflect who overall played better (came closer to winning) in a drawn match..."
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-07 12:35:58)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.
Jose Carrizo (2015-07-08 17:17:22)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
If a player want to win with Black today, he can play Kingsindian and the Benko Gambit without new rules.
Peter W. Anderson (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)
I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.
And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.
According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under todays 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 dont 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 dont 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 wont write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)
Alvin Alcala (2015-07-10 14:46:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Hi everyone. GM Arno wants to post in this thread as he has trouble logging in.
Introducing a 3/4-1/4 score for stalemate does not mean changing the whole game. Lasker and Réti, the fathers of this idea, knew quite well what they did, when they said, it's only a minor change (btw following the ancient chess, when mates were rare and a stalemated player had to pay half of his stake).
Some people on ChessBase argued and feared that the game might become bloodless as players would fear to sacrify material. But that's a wrong assessment.
Here is a "normal" classical GM game with a Morra Gambit, that could have happened the same way under the new rule:
E.Berg - S. Rocha (POR 2013)
1.e4 c5 2.d4 cxd4 3.c3 dxc3 4.Nxc3 Nc6 5.Nf3 d6 6.Bc4 a6 7.00 Nf6 8.Bf4 Bg4 9.h3 Bxf3 10.Qxf3 e6 11.Rfd1 Qc7 12.Rac1 Be7 13.Bb3 Rc8 14.Nd5 exd5 15.exd5 Ne5 16.Qe3 Qd7 17.Rxc8+ Qxc8 18.Bxe5 00 19.Bf4 Qd7 20.Rc1 Bd8 21.Qd4 Re8 22.Qb4 Be7 23.Ba4 b5 24.Bb3 Rc8 25.Rxc8+ Qxc8 26.a4 Qc5 27.Qe1 Kf8 28.Be3 Qc7 29.axb5 axb5 30.Qb4 Qb7 31.g4 h6 32.Qd4 Nd7 33.Qe4 Bf6 34.Qb4 Qa6 35.Bc2 Ne5 36.Kg2 Nc4 37.Bc1 g5 38.Bd3 Qa1 39.Bxc4 bxc4 40.Qxc4 Bxb2 41.Be3 Bf6 42.Qc8+ Kg7 43.Qf5 Qc3 44.Qe4 Qb2 45.Qf5 Qc3 46.Qe4 Qb2 47.h4 gxh4 48.Qf4 Qe5 49.Qxh6+ Kg8 50.Kg1 h3 51.Qxh3 ŊŊ
Follow the comments in the MegaBase.
White sacrifies a pawn at move 3. He regains it at move 18 by a typical piece sacrifice. Later White, who is pressing a lot, while Black defends quite well, could have won a pawn by 38.b3 (instead of 38.Bd3?): e.g. 38...Qa1 39.Bxg5 hxg5 40.bxc4 bxc4 41.Qxc4.
Berg argues he might have had practical winning chances. Either 1-0 or 1/2. So what is the big difference, if we would say: either 1-0, 3/4 or 1/2? It's just making the game more exciting, more fair and a bit less drawish, what is badly needed for correspondence chess.
The basic wrong assessment is that it might be significantly easier to achieve a stalemate advantage. But it isn't (and that's why only a small percentage of games will end like that). Last but not least, players who achieve a clear endgame advantage deserve a 3/4 point instead of 1/2. K+P, K+B, K+N vs. K should be a difference to K vs. K."
Thanks again, Arno
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-10 20:47:49)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
But white can´t find the winning plan / move and yet rewarded with an extra score. Meanwhile Black defends quite well but get no additional bonus for his skills. If we compare with football, then Italy had hardly been able to become world champions, just as Tigran Petrosjan never would have been in chess.
Scott Nichols (2015-07-10 20:56:39)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
IMO the only true tiebreak is a playoff with the time controls shortening after each 2 games until one side wins. I know this is not possible with most tournaments. Certainly someone who "tied" for first, but lost the prize on tiebreaks is not going to tell people they finished second. Lots of sports have playoffs, golf, football etc. Because for the romantic, a tie is like nothing, it's not a true win.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-11 02:18:11)
E. Riccio on his win in the 10th CC WCH
Once again, Eros kindly answered a few questions after his win in the 10th FICGS correspondence chess championship. His answer on tie break rules meets the discussion in this thread:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11773
____________________________
- Hello Eros and congrats again for this new win in the FICGS correspondence chess championship! This time, your opponent was Peter W. Anderson and you're playing him once again in the next final match. Actually, all games finished in less than 3 months, which looks like superfast, how did it happen?
Hello once again Thibault! Yes, the match with Anderson was very quick. The reasons are that he moves very fast, and like me, I don't seem to remember that he took any day of leave.
Also, our games were not played until the very end; many draws were agreed with many pieces on the board, as soon as we thought that none of us had winning chances.
- For many players, it is quite impossible to beat you in such a 12 games match (probably because of the tie rule). After all these won matches do you start to think that the advantage is too big?
It's a fact that a very high percentage of correspondence games played at the top level ends up in a draw... (and that percentage is even higher in my case, as my strategy is to avoid taking risks) so yes, talking against my interests, I think that something in the rules should be changed.
- By the way, your opponent suggested an interesting tie rule in the forum ( Chess, Poker & Go forum - Topic 11773 ), in the context of more general new ideas for correspondence chess rules (e.g. article by GM Arno Nickel - Correspondence Chess the draw problem ) in order to increase the interest of the game. Do you have any opinion on all this?
The idea GM Nickel launched could be interesting, even if before we can say for sure if it can be applied in serious tournaments, it needs to be tested.
If I understood correctly, having a piece more in a draw endgame, after the game is over, a little plus on the score would be given to the player who had the small advantage.
I always thought like: How unfair! That player had King and two Knights against a lone King of his opponent... still he only got a half point anyway! Or even worse, in theory, one player could have this position: King in e1, Bishop in h1 and 6 Pawns from h2 to h7. (Black King in h8) Counting the value of pieces that would be a a +9 advantage, like a Queen more, but still it would be a draw. Another crazy scenario, more common, are those blocked positions were 16 pawns block the center (or more simply any fortress position) and not rarely it happens that a color has a huge material advantage but can't break through in any way. In this last case the player with material disadvantage could have found a genial idea to reach that blocked position, should his opponent with extra pieces still be given an advantage after the game?
Another important consideration is that this rule could discourage attacking players to play gambits or make sacrifices, as if the attack fails, their efforts to try to win would be punished! This last case would even increase the draw rate.
Probably Nickel didn't talk about giving a plus after games finished with advantage but still many pieces on board, anyway those positions (except the 16 Pawns one) could very well be played on until only one piece would be left.
After these examples we can see that there are so many different ways that a position with material advantage can be reached... but it's not always fair that the player with the advantage should be given a plus after the game. As a paradox, an advantage should be given to the opponent if he smartly managed to sacrifice one or more pieces in order to reach a draw endgame which he would have lost if he didn't give away material.
- Of course, the level of chess programs is for much in it. Do you feel that high level correspondence chess and centaur chess evolved much this year, or did it reach a kind of peak?
The level of correspondence chess increases in a parallel way as computers, databases and chess programs improve. Slowly everything keeps improving. Of course, due to the more thinking time, correspondence chess will always have a higher draw percentage than blitz games played by computers.
- Finally, what can you tell us about your correspondence chess path this year, particularly at ICCF where you're currently ranked #13?
On ICCF I am fighting with the Italian Team (I am playing in second board behind the World Champion Finocchiaro) in the 9th European Team Championship.
---> https://www.iccf.com/event?id=44123
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-11 02:24:37)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Eros Riccio just gave his opinion on all this when answering a few questions on his win in the 10th corr. chess WCH, you may have a look here:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11811
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-11 07:14:05)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
We all agree about that the drawing problem occur when top players playing matches against one another they avoids taking risks, and overall that the likelihood of stalemate is quite low in chess?
Then maybe we should play more risky openings and as well more closed positions also. I see we don´t do that now.
Alvin Alcala (2015-07-11 09:43:19)
E. Riccio on his win in the 10th CC WCH
Congratulations! long live the king.
Pablo Schmid (2015-07-12 02:09:18)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Here is most examples of my ficgs practice (corr and Advanced chess). This represent a low percentage of my games. These games are food for thought from my own assisted experience against that rule that I call "+1 decisive advantage chess". I believe you could already burn a lot of chapters in ending's book. Most of my games show balanced games until the end, sometime, the "punished guy" could have played another drawing defense, sometimes not, unfairly to me. The game would be more safe, with less sacrifices of piece vs 2 or 3 pawns and things like that because of fearing an ending with king vs king + piece or king vs king + pawn even if the sacrifice was sound and well played.
Game 22895 and 84758 I would probably have been punished by the rule in the ending of game 22895 (and my opponent in the other game), and that type of ending in general (piece + pawn up vs piece when the king cannot block the pawn).
Game 37122 Shame on me, my advantage in that ending was not sufficient to force my opponent to sacrifice his bishop for my last pawn. This is why I only deserve 0,5!
Game 37920 That king of pawns vs piece + pawn would become lost for the player without the piece, what a way of punish some balanced sacrifices for pawns!
Game 54907 and 20704 That kind of opposite bishop ending would be "lost" for the guy pawnless even if the transition into an inferior but drawn ending was the intention of the "inferior guy".
Game 74870 The ending is perfectly balanced but my opponent couldn't finish the game the way he did because of the rule.
Game 74875 I would have been half-losing in the pawn ending after a nice defense in an interesting unbalanced material line.
Game 74880 the ending knight + h pawn would have been "half losing" for me even if we can't say that I was clearly worse overall.
Game 76734 and 76764 Technichally this game is not directly concerned by the rule but it is very close. I was on the verge of defeat but I have managed to defend stubornely. If he have played well to get a winning position and then the win disapear because of bad play but still finish with a draw, he would get a bonus because he played better overall? The way I managed to defend would not be rewarded?
Game 77809 In this game the whole deep opening line would probably be "half losing" for Black in the ending because of the new rule.
Game 80954 Suddenly it seems that I would have been punished for my defense in the final position.
Game 85106 I did not play specially badly but... I would have been punished for my way of finishing the game!
Jan Ohlin (2015-07-12 07:58:10)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Thank you Pablo showing these concrete examples. The tecnical problem occur more often than I expected.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-08-06 01:38:48)
Improving netiquette rules
Thank you Scott! Goes right in the heart.
Just trying to find the "best" way, this is really hard in some cases (e.g. such case), that's why help and discussion are always welcome ^^
About this case, I think I'm still following my line (also strongly suggested by Gino during the first months of FICGS) that human decision should be reduced to the minimum. It is obvious that it demands strong rules and patience to all players (particularly during a possible Dead Man Defence)... Here, it is important to check if the "insulting" aspect is subjective enough or not, I must say I don't feel qualified to say it. I had to make a decision by myself, but I'd prefer being able to read it in the rules next time.
Scott Nichols (2015-09-27 01:43:01)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I agree, 59 draws, 1 win = 5 world ch's
Does not compute...
Garvin Gray (2015-09-27 12:55:00)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I will carry this point on a bit. Thibault defense for the current system is that it maintains the old classical system of the world championship.
But even fide has recognised that the draw odds to the champion gave too much advantage, and that is in over the board play, never mind in engine chess.
The defending champion already receives two advantages- the right to be in the final match, and if that match is lost, then is in the next qualifying match.
And then the champion in the championship match also receives draw odds.
When you see it written like this, do you now see how much of an advantage the defending champion actually does receive?
And this all goes back to when the site was first set up.
It is not like Eros had to play through from the first stage against all the beginners and fight his way and defeat the previous defending champion to win the title.
Garvin Gray (2015-10-01 09:07:08)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Keeping the discussion solely to this issue of World Championship Tie break rule and draw odds, I have already made one proposal, which is that the final match be split into two parts. The first eight games be started, and then if tied, then the remaining four games are played.
A defensive strategy in the first eight games is not so well rewarded, because the champion has the knowledge that if the first eight games are drawn, then they have to play another four games.
Yes, after 12 games, I am still stating that the champion retains the title if the match is tied 6-6, unless someone can propose how to break the tie with more games, but at least this way, the two players have more to gain by trying to win a game, especially the champion and concluding the match in the first eight games.
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!
Alvin Alcala (2015-10-08 18:16:29)
Alvin Alcala wins Ultimate Chess Champ.
Thanks Thib!
Garvin Gray (2015-10-14 15:17:26)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
Jan: Eros has clearly stated that he has used the advantage of draw odds by playing defensively and by playing for draws, knowing he only needs to draw all the games to retain the title.
So he knows he does not need to win the match to retain the title and has used the rules to their full effect. Of course this is his right and well done to him, but it is also the organisers and rule makers duty to change the rules when the circumstances are no longer in the interest of the event as a whole.
If all 12 games in each match had been blood and guts affairs, and a few games had been won, but the eventual score was 6-6, then this whole conversation would probably not be happening.
But when only ONE, I REPEAT ONE, game has been won in the last eight matches, and Eros has managed to retain the title each title, it is clear that the rules need to change.
I have made two clear proposals. As illustrated above, it is not a case in the previous matches that all the games were hard fought, so your argument that adding four extra games would be onerous in the final match.
Yes, it could produce an effect of more drawn games from short draws, but then if this the case, then all players should be warned the organisers will be forced to seriously consider introducing no draw agreements before move 30 without the agreement of the arbiter.
Again, this is what occurs when the players make it clear they are determined not to win their games.
Garvin Gray (2015-10-23 13:11:56)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I think this whole discussion has missed the original point of why I made the original proposal for the ficgs world cup.
It was to give players who were in the 2100 to 2200 and below more opportunities against players rated 2300 and above, whilst still also giving the top players something to play for ie the tournament win.
So the original concept was that there was no knockout groups, or starting final match, but instead that all players started from round one, and then everyone had to qualify for round two from there, with only the winners to advance at each stage.
The format above could have even taken over from the waiting lists we currently have, which struggle to be filled, as they give more purpose.
Instead, what is being proposed now, is just one big round robin. As someone who has just organised a round robin event, I can assure you, soon after the games have started, the players will soon forget which games are for the world cup, and which are their World championship games, and which are their Rapid SM, or Rapid M games.
Next, the strength of the field. For this event to work with the monster round robin, it really does need most of the top players competing. How can this be ensured to make it a worthwhile event?
Related to this- the time control. Very few serious correspondence chess players are going to sign up to a time control of 10 days initial time when they potentially have 31 games.
Remember, this is meant to be one of FICGS main events on the calendar. That is at least how I view it.
The time control should be 30 days plus 3 days per move if the format is single round robin with 32 or so players.
I still believe the original proposal of mine is the one that should be adopted, not the single round robin that is being discussed now.
I will not be playing in the single round robin.
Sebastian Boehme (2015-10-24 00:57:15)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
What about to make it easier for most players, split the big round tournament into an A and a B group as preliminaries of say 16 players.
And so oh then the final groups the best 8 of each winner group go to the Final and the last 8 players of each group go to the B final?
This in my opinion could ease a lot for players and still would be challenging.
Stephane Legrand (2015-11-08 09:53:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Perhaps the winner can be qualified for a big Wch candidates final or something like this.
Garvin Gray (2015-11-10 01:50:55)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I really do believe the first question that needs to be asked is. What is the purpose of this event?
Then after that question has been asked and the answer gotten, then the format is rather automatic.
I believe the purpose of the event should be to have all players start from round one in different round robin groups, and then the winners of these groups progress to the next stage (This could even be the final of 11 players if there is eleven groups).
So in all it could be just two stages.
Scott Nichols (2015-11-10 14:37:41)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
This is all just re-hashing the Wch event. All that needs to be done is 1. Have a tie-break playoff. Each round of (2) games having a shorter time control until a win is reached. 2. There should be no returning champion privileges. Everyone will have to start from the beginning with the final 8 players qualified for a double RR to determine champion.
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.
Ian Zimmerman (2015-11-18 16:59:23)
Feature request
Something still missing on this site, is the ability to sort games by time of last move. This is very useful for players who keeps their own records of games offline, as almost all experienced correspondence players do. All of the following sites have the feature: ICCF, SchemingMind, ChessWorld.
Alternatively, if you want to be innovative, here is something that would do the same job even more efficiently: have an extra flag (call it ACK) stored with each game, and allow filtering by ACK. Display ACK next to each game as a checkbox. Set ACK automatically in one and exactly one situation: when the *opponent* moves.
This way, when I turn on the filter, I can see at a glance all the games where my opponent *just* moved, and I clear ACK by clicking on the checkbox as I update my offline database for each game.
Scott Nichols (2015-12-08 01:22:21)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
The 32 players were fine. Time controls (a little long for my taste, but...) are even OK. I had 2 big beefs with the wch. 1. playing a 1400 that just bought a new comp that NOW plays 2000+. If I beat him--0 rating points, draw--I lose many points, etc. 2. The "seeding" of players is not fair IMO, everybody should start at the start line. then the winner can feel much more proud to repeat as champion. I actually may win an ICCF semi-final (#45349), one more game needs to finish. I was seeded 10th of 11 players when it started. I mention this because in far too many of the Wch games were drawn much too early IMO. In ICCF, at least my tour's, the games were fought much longer, down to less than 10 pieces quite often. I looked at this last one and they are calling it a draw in the middlegame. I ask WHY? Just because it's 0.00 for a while, so what? It's the WORLD CH.! How many chances will a player get the opportunity? Each game should be fought to the death. Eros is very busy and has to be getting on in years, make him WORK for it! Sorry to ramble, just a few thoughts...
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?
Garvin Gray (2015-12-14 10:41:45)
TER rating calculation
Herbert, remember, rating is also only calculated at the end of two months based on all the games you have finished in that two month period and is a performance rating of those games.
In fact, from looking at the example given from just this one game, if it was based on just this one game only and using only the ratings at the time of the game, then you would have a rating of 2420 and your opponent would have a rating of 2400, then your rating difference would be larger than the TER of 2400, so in fact by drawing the game, you would lose more than 1 point.
So the TER calculation has helped you, rather than hindered you, in THIS CASE.
Herbert Kruse (2015-12-14 10:48:02)
TER rating calculation
ok, i formula is not really good, but i can deal with it.
the reason for all of this is, that in a match someone has the advantage of winning with 8 draws, if his TER is higher
Scott Nichols (2015-12-16 20:45:46)
TER rating calculation
I saw Wosch won the 12th Wch Canditates final with a 4-4 score. His TER and finished rating was around 200 points below his opp. Why was he declared winner?
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.
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;
Garvin Gray (2016-01-18 09:53:00)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I take you mean if in Ficgs World Cup 1 (FWC1) we got 73 players, then in Ficgs World Cup 2 we got 103 players?
Is that correct?
If that is correct, then in FWC1, using a number of 73 players, it would be 4 groups of 10, 3 groups of 11.
For the second stage (finals)= I know this might be a bit controversial, but I think the TER rule should be dropped and those who tie for first should progress. Since we have seven groups, that should mean at the most eleven players in the final.
This will have the by-product in the round robin games of everyone knowing that if they can finish outright first, they knockout everyone from their group immediately.
In FWC2- With 103 players, same format, just more groups.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-01-27 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.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-02-04 00:22:39)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
So, by following this ruleset, at the end there can be several winners, right?
Thibault de Vassal (2016-02-06 02:59:07)
Alvin Alcala wins Ultimate Chess Champ.
In the news again :)
http://www.bworldonline.com/content.php?section=Sports&title=Draw-death-Not&id=122530
Scott Nichols (2016-02-06 18:08:50)
Alvin Alcala wins Ultimate Chess Champ.
No doubt about it, you are #1 my friend. Congrats!!
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.
Scott Nichols (2016-03-28 00:20:00)
3 catches on the "river"
I'm not new to poker. Against one player, he had one card to catch on the river 3 times to win. Let's see 44 x 44 x44 = 85,184 to 3 chances. This poker program has a LOT to be desired.
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 ...
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 !!
Nilson Pereira (2016-07-03 01:09:34)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
In modern times there will be no winner if there is no gain. Formerly the champions would have to be defeated, the draw favored. In the present times it does not work like that anymore. There has to be a champion with victories.
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 (2016-07-03 02:06:18)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
The rules specify that (in other words) "all games draw means retaining title". You may consider it as a win... or not. But in all cases, Eros did what was necessary to take then retain the title according to the rules.
Btw, it happened in 1987 with Kasparov vs. Karpov.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Chess_Championship_1987
"In modern times there will be no winner if there is no gain": That's a choice... but many people were deceived to see blitz games or so to decide championships initially played at classical time controls. As for me, I would feel the same if a correspondence chess champ was decided by a few advanced chess games.
Finally, I completely understand your point of view, but is this an absolute truth?
Herbert Kruse (2016-08-06 10:13:53)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
if there is at least one loss and one win and 6-6, the challenger should be the winner, because all stages before have the simular rule
Jan Ohlin (2016-08-09 11:52:23)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
In WCH Quarter Final 000016 there will be more wins because this time we play more closed openings. It´s the best chance in advanced chess to win I think.
I will never forget last game Kasparov - Karpov 1987...
Herbert Kruse (2016-08-12 22:17:07)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
so far you are the only one with wins in this Quarter Final ;)
but if opps are strong there will be no win anymore i guess, only mouse errors :)
Jan Ohlin (2016-08-13 07:50:52)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
So far, yes! ;-) I look at all games and also follow Anderson - StrÃļmberg, a match very interesting from an advanced chess view. The strongest computer win against best player, when will that scenario begin to happen...?
George Jempty (2016-09-02 10:21:48)
Player of the Year
I've been thinking it would be interesting to have nominations for a "Player of the Year" that FICGS members could then vote on. Qualifications could be listed in a manner similar to the following:
1) 15 wins, 13 draws and 0 losses since Oct 2015
2) Rating increase of nearly 250 points (1904-2152) during same time period
3) As 1904 player finished tied for second with score of 4/6 in tournament where average rating was 2041
4) Won a standard B tournament with score of 5.5/6 and a performance rating of 2332
5) Guaranteed tie for first place in a standard A tournament (currently tied for first and is playing in the one remaining game in the tourney against someone one point behind)
6) Currently leading stage 1 group of 2016 World Championship with score of 5/5
7) Finished tied for first in Rapid M tournament for which it was necessary to buy a ticket because TER of 2077 being below normal minimum of 2100
Yes I'm bragging on myself more than a little bit, but still I think that the listed qualifications are pretty objective
George Jempty (2016-09-20 15:46:07)
Failed to receive email
I failed to receive an email for Sorbi's 25th move in the following game: http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=move_express&game=93675
Thought I should report it in case it's an issue for anybody else
Peter W. Anderson (2016-09-21 08:59:06)
Failed to receive email
It has been like this for quite a few days now.
I did report it in the chat window but (dare I say it?)someone deleted my post, presumably before you read it Thib. lol
Scott Nichols (2016-11-07 18:36:23)
Poker Poll
The problem with this system is that if someone KNOWS when they call a bet, they will win that game. Some players then BANK that game for later when they need some quick rating points. The same goes for a loss, WAIT till you can easily afford to lose a few points without to much damage. THEN call, :/
Scott Nichols (2016-11-07 21:57:16)
Poker Poll
My idea was just a heads up match between 2 players who both feel they are the best:) No ratings, no money, everything just stays the same. The reason I offer this is because I'm 99% mathematically sure with this rating system, reaching 2400 would be next to impossible with everyone so much lower rated.
On the other hand, all I have to do is win a dozen or so games quickly and there it is. I feel it is an unfair advantage to me.
Thibault de Vassal (2016-11-11 19:15:18)
Do the cards matter?
As for me, I'm not sure if the answer is in the question or not?! You wrote "Last hand. " What decides who is the best if there's no winner after the last hand?
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 â 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 â 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 â 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 â 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. â 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 âcrimeâ 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 15:07:51)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Against any penalties for using allowed time in any manner (including allowing it to run out completely).
Sorry for any misunderstandings.
Herbert Kruse (2016-11-30 15:53:22)
Future penalties for games lost on time
11. 5. Adjudications
In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.
If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee.
Garvin Gray (2017-01-05 01:10:02)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Returning to this issue:
Ficgs already has a policy on this issue from its rules. It is covered in 11.6:
Any player who forfeits (by resignation or silent withdrawal) his games in an equal or winning position, without giving an explanation to referee in a rated chess tournament could lose his other games in the tournament, get a limited access to the server and couldn't enter waiting lists anymore during a period of 2 months, at the referee's discretion.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-11 15:38:14)
Defeating Draw Death
The wild 6 first moves idea should be possible with thematic tournaments... Maybe the f7 pawn is possible this way as well. Why not... Scott's 2nd idea reminds me the silver thematic chess (now Traxler).
Jan, I did not miss your ideas in the chat on wins / draws... It may be very interesting and funny to try but it changes really everything, the game is not the same according to me, and the code should be rewritten in good part. And well, isn't it a question of taste before everything? As for me, I'm quite sure I would play it like atomic chess, then would come back to the original game.
Jan Ohlin (2017-01-11 17:05:09)
Defeating Draw Death
I think it´s reasonable with extra elo points for a win. I take high risks playing some opening variations. And I do play chess with a World Champ in every match. Stockfish with some kind of human alias... :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-18 03:32:56)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Finally, here is a new interview with FICGS correspondence chess champion GM Eros Riccio, who gives us his (surprising?) impressions on his latest win in the championship, his current match and correspondence chess nowadays... A good matter to think about!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012
____________
- Hi again Eros... Once more, congratulations for winning this final match in the 12th FICGS correspondence chess championship. This time, it seems that things went quite differently than in your previous matches (you scored 9 out of 12, which is a huge performance at this level), could you tell us what happened in these games?
--> Hi, yes, finally we have seen some wins after a very long series of draws. I was surprised too, I didn't risk to lose any game and I could even win one as Black... What to say, my opponent was simply not as challenging as the previous ones.
- It's a long time since you won the previous match, would you like to tell us about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you now rank #9 with an outstanding 2643 rating?
--> My latest final on FICGS were my only games of 2016. On ICCF I have taken some rest, the too high draw rate didn't incentive me to start new tournaments, also because drawing all games with a high rating means losing points.
- In the next final match (13th cycle), you play Peter W. Anderson for the 3rd time... so you probably know each other's opening book quite well. What do you expect for in this match?
--> Anderson is a very tough opponent, it's not a coincidence that he reached the final for the third time. I tried to win at least one game as White, but he's incredibly hard to beat. I experimented with almost anything possible against his modern defence, but I could never find a single weakness in his repertoire. I will see what to invent this time against his terrific 1...g6.
- As you probably know, another Go champion (Lee Sedol) lost a 5-games match to AlphaGo this year, while chess engines (now Stockfish 8, Houdini 5 Komodo 10...) slowly but surely continue to improve... Still waiting for the quantum computers. How do you feel things should go in the next years? Did your way of playing advanced chess or correspondence chess change these last years?
--> I have said a lot already about the very high draw rate of the recent years... I am surprised that some changes haven't been done already, like switching to chess 960, even modifying some chess rules, or at least giving 1,5 points for one win. Otherwise a lot of players will lose interest in seeing a series of all draws in the tournaments they play. I am one of those players who lost interest in correspondence chess, and even in blitz chess, engine vs engine, as we can see the extremely high draw rate situation there too.
- Finally, what can we wish for you for the next year? :)
--> Wish me to lose the match with Anderson :-) even I got bored of seeing myself there over and over in the final! That will bring some new air and that way I can take some total rest in corr. chess.
- Many thanks for your time, have a great match!
--> Welcome, and thanks.
Roger Llull (2017-01-18 04:33:20)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
I have an idea. Make it more of an spectator sport like engine vs engine is, by letting people offer Epoints to the winners of thematic tournaments in the openings they choose. Let others interested in the same opening add to those Epoints and discuss changes in time controls, starting position and Elo limit. Those studying openings can this way effectively pay for great line analysis, and if this is done well and takes traction, it could even be a source of income for the best players.
Jan Ohlin (2017-01-18 09:34:24)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Reward a game win in one or more way so people risk more in the opening. DO NOT change the way how to play chess.
Scott Nichols (2017-01-18 19:44:24)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
I too am bored with CC. IDK what to do either, maybe change scoring system--.9 for white win, 1.1 for black win, same with draws, 5.5 & 4.5 or something...
Jan Ohlin (2017-01-18 20:28:39)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Is there a need to distinguish between black and white? When you win a game in CC it depends first and foremost on blunders, weak play or finally you playing a position where the computer takes long time to come up with something sensible, for example in closed variation in spanish (C97, 12. d5) and therefore best player will win. Ok, winning as black requires a lot of energy for study theory, but ...?
George Jempty (2017-01-19 20:19:53)
Defeating Draw Death
I don't understand the reasoning. If White is only going to score 0.4 for a draw, it behooves him to play more riskily for the win and a full point.
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-19 22:32:57)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
How to choose the opening, maybe random in a pre select list, or the whole small selected list, or the choice of the players like 4 choices each. For example I could ask 'I want this subline of the king's gambit" and I should not ask a too risky one because the idea is to try to win the Black(or even White) side while surviving when the color is reversed.
Pablo Schmid (2017-01-20 18:05:27)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Why would a thematic disfavour Black? That's not logical, it just depends of the thematic! If we take the King's gambit accepred as example, Black is not worse and may be the opposite! Even if you lose as Black because of the thematuc, you have chance to win the game where you have White against it... At least the idea would be interesting to play very interesting lines and games that fear does not allow in normal time and to contribue to chess theory in wild opening.
Jan Ohlin (2017-01-20 19:46:00)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw
Benoni without 7.f4, Kingsindian (especially variations where both players attacking on different wings (computers are not so good at calculating when all pieces are behind pawns), Spanish with d5 closing center. 1.Nf3 d5 2.c4 d4 3.b4 and 1.d4 d5 2.Nf3 Nf6 3.c4 c6 4.Nc3 e6 5.g3
Jan Ohlin (2017-01-20 19:52:35)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
If enough of games is thematic then elo could be the normal one, yes. The opportunity for winning games equalizes the drawbacks of computer related chess
Roger Llull (2017-01-20 21:29:00)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Pablo, changes to the WCH wouldn't make a difference for many years because the rules of each running event can't be changed now without sacrificing site credibility.
But I don't think this is about fixing the WCH final. This is about getting rid of the big frustration that represents the almost total impossibility of winning at the top level.
You can't mix thematic and classic CC Elos for the same reason you can't mix the Elo of classic time controls and the Elo of bullet time controls.
Thibault has an opportunity to bring new life to correspondence chess, but we need to see things from a different perspective. Let's make the most of what's already in place, -like Epoints- and introduce ways to add and influence new events even before they start. Because connecting with others and participating in more ways would bring new interest and benefit a lot more people than tring to fix what's already perfect -sort of- but stale.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-23 20:17:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years
The problem with the starting positions in FICGS thematic tournaments, one of the player can open the position and it will be draw. Some years ago, someone show me a youtube video about a game played on TCEC between leela chess zero and Stockfish.
https://tcec-chess.com/#div=sf&game=61&season=15
The engines start to play at move 7, white had more space and black can't open the position
Garvin Gray (2017-01-25 01:02:13)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
Thibault. On this forum, we have agreed that a player can claim for a position to be adjudicated as a win/draw when the 6 piece position is displayed on the board.
The reason for this is that the all 6 piece positions have been solved and can be freely confirmed by anyone, such as using shredderchess.com
ICCF has now moved quite a while ago to allowing 6 piece claims as well.
7 piece claims are still not allowed as all positions have not been solved, and the positions that have, are not freely available to the general public (from my understanding).
Garvin Gray (2017-01-25 09:18:35)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
I have read the formatted rules. The only difference between what is in this thread and what is in the entry conditions is how ties for first will be broken.
If you read back through this thread, I said:
Garvin- For the second stage (finals)= I know this might be a bit controversial, but I think the TER rule should be dropped and those who tie for first should progress. Since we have seven groups (this was based on this discussion at the time- Garvin insert 25/1/17), that should mean at the most eleven players in the final.
This will have the by-product in the round robin games of everyone knowing that if they can finish outright first, they knockout everyone from their group immediately.
--------------------
And we continued discussing the rules and it was agreed to remove the TER and other 'tie' rules have those who finish equal first all progress.
So that rule needs to be changed.
As quite a few of the entrants will not have seen this thread, or any of the other discussions, perhaps a slight explanation for round one of how this event is different to the FICGS world champs would be helpful to 'sell' the event.
As in. For the FICGS World Chess Cup, The Highest Rated Player will be seed 1 and placed in Group A, Second Highest Rated Player will be seed 2 and placed in Group B and so forth for seed 3, seed 4 etc till all players have been allocated to their respective groups.
All players start from the first round and there is no knockout stage.
Arturas Drozdovas (2017-04-02 11:42:04)
Ultimate Challenge Tour 2017, USD 20k
50 USD to enter, it's like burning your money if you are positive that you can't win :)
Peter W. Anderson (2017-04-19 08:46:20)
Thematic with lowest chances of draw
One possibility would be to take a selection of openings from the last TCEC final. These were deliberately unbalanced to reduce the drawing chances. They were a superb set of openings. To make it fair people would have to play both sides of an opening.
I could also provide you with some hard to hold positions from the modern defence (I won't be playing, so there will no unfair advantage).
Re the previous suggestions:
- benoni with early Bf4 is a good choice
- czech benoni is definitely overscored by engines but will be a tough hold nonethless; I would watch these games with interest
- Hennig Schara is great fun and I have never lost with it on FICGS, but it really is awful if white plays the best line (but I am not going to say what that is!).
- KID would depend on which line was chosen; some lines have been analysed almost to death, others have plenty of scope left.
One other possibility - a Breyer Lopez. Quite a tough hold IMO and therefore a good choice if everyone plays both sides.
Peter W. Anderson (2017-04-19 13:42:06)
WCh and other ramblings
Congratulations to Eros for retaining his FICGS world title again. A casual glance at our 36 games might give the impression that I did not put him under much pressure apart from in game 95512. Actually it is more a case of him making it look easy. He generally plays extremely accurately in the opening and avoids deeply hidden pitfalls in the middle game â I always get the feeling that I am playing someone who understands the game well rather than someone purely reliant on engines.
I have decided to give up playing normal correspondence chess. Engines have simply become too strong and the amount of human input into my games has decreased over time. Human input remains (games 95516, 95512, 93727/87343 being good examples), but there is far too much hard work with engines these days for my liking. I am sure a GM would add a lot more value but I am a mere mortal! I will probably play some big chess instead. I tried this a couple of times and really enjoyed it. I just hope nobody writes an engine for it.
With regards to the format of the world championship, we need to recognise that with engines getting stronger the draw odds is a bigger and bigger advantage for the champion. Despite that I personally think the current format is fine. I generated a significant advantage in 2 games â in addition to game 95512, I believe game 87337 offered real chances if I had not forgotten to play 25.Nb4 as intended (I could barely look at a chess board for a month after screwing that game up, but that is another story). If people keep trying they may eventually beat Eros. The bigger issue to my mind is Erosâs own statement of boredom with defending the championship. So time for a change when the current cycles are finished?
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.
Daniel Parmet (2017-07-05 03:43:11)
Ratings
To start with you have 1852 rated IMs that are 2352 on ICCF. The ratings here often don't make any sense at all. And for me, 2135 drawing such a player is a huge hit to my rating here while on ICCF I may lose a fraction of a rating point for such a draw.
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 (2017-08-12 21:52:19)
Go and artificial intelligence
A funny drawing about Go and A.I. :)
https://xkcd.com/1875/
Herbert Kruse (2017-09-01 20:14:42)
Kasparovs comeback in chess
i didnt see any good theoretical choices from him, in my opinion he is far away from the state of the art theory
but he is a good fighter, if he can be more concentrated or physical strengh were better he could win, because the positions were chaotic and he is a still very good tactical player :)
Paul Larwinski (2017-09-21 18:00:52)
WCh and other ramblings
how many cpu cores has the computer of GM Eros and Kruse in their wch match ? interesting
Paul Larwinski (2017-09-21 18:03:53)
WCh and other ramblings
and it looks like the wch match between them 2 are all games draw, the opinion of Stockfish engine now . still 4 games running
Garvin Gray (2017-10-01 06:36:44)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Quick observation from beginning of final round. Players are not stuffing around and taking forever with their opening moves.
Knowing they have 16 games to play and a time control of 30 days plus 1 day per move, players seem to be getting through the opening phase quickly, to get as much extra time on their clock in all their games as possible.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-09 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!
Sergey Zemlyanov (2017-10-09 21:55:57)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
Hi, Thibault
A few words about the match with Riccio Eros. It seemed to me that Eros played too reliably, with a reserve of durability! However, now top-ranking OTB chess grandmasters, like Karjakin or Caruana, often play reliably too. The drawish tendencies are now visible in correspondence chess, unfortunately. To win Eros was very difficult, because of his debut choice and a power of the game, of course. Top grandmasters ICCF usually lose when they risk playing, for example, the Old Indian defense for Black.
Okay, then I donate e-points to the site and the question will be closed.
Sorry for my bad English. I do not have enough communication with foreigners.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-09 22:08:13)
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."
Thibault de Vassal (2017-10-19 20:14:23)
AlphaGo Zero
Must read... AlphaGo would have been able to re-learn from scratch & reach the level of the AlphaGo (2015) that beat Lee Sedol in... 3 days... only 3 days!
http://deepmind.com/blog/alphago-zero-learning-scratch/
Not so surprisingly, it took 21 days to reach the level of the version that beat Ke Jie this year. Now he would have reached a stellar rating (that does not mean much to us poor humans) of about 5000 (!) and he's able to win 100 games out of 100 to the AlphaGo "Lee".
Really stunning.
Garvin Gray (2017-11-01 15:42:29)
Adjudications & 7 pieces tablebases
Since no one else has answered this. The reason why 7 piece tablebases are not yet used as declared results is two fold:
1) All positions have not yet been completely solved. This is my understanding at this point in time. Even if this point is now incorrect, please refer to point 2
2) The positions are not freely available and able to be reviewed to verify that a position is a draw or win for the claimant. At this point in time, this is possible for all 6 man positions, with sites like shredder tablebases site, for instance. Just copy your fen in as the arbiter and up come the result.
This type of resource does not yet exist for 7 man endings and until it does, 7 man adjudications will remain outside the rulings of official decisions.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-15 18:02:00)
7 pieces tablebases
By the way, do I read/understand correctly that Queen+Rook+Bishop can win against Queen+Queen in any endgame ??
How's that possible?!
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-11-20 17:44:49)
7 pieces tablebases
Probably the QRB wins against QQ too often to not mention the rare wins (that are shorter too, probably) in the other direction is missing from Wikipedia article.
One has to find complete statistics somewhere as Wikipedia article doesn't help in this case.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-11-25 21:05:20)
The older rating lists
At last, all correspondence chess rating lists (from the server start, march 2006) are available by clicking "Rating lists" and following "The older rating lists"... 1 year of ratings by page.
As it was asked by a few players for a long time, only players who were REALLY active (who finished at least one game at most 1 year before or 1 year after the period) are listed in.
Many informations and good memories :) The worst part is that I can see clearly the reality: About 50% players left in about 4 or 5 years. The peak was about 900 players, there are now only 261 active correspondence chess players. Time to find new ideas, definitely.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-12-07 16:44:05)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
It looks like there's no more month without news from Google Deepmind... This time again, this is quite stunning!
AlphaZero would have been able to beat (crush) the most recent version of Stockfish, that is also the world champion program and of course the free engine well known by correspondence chess players.
But most important is that actually AlphaZero would have outperformed Stockfish after only 4 hours of training (if I understood well), while it took 8 hours to outperform AlphaGo Lee and only 120 minutes to outperform Elmo at Shogi! However it seems much much harder for the neural program to improve at chess after this stunningly fast auto-learning.
100 games played (25 wins & 25 draws with white! 3 wins with black... no loss, either with white or black, which is an incredible performance)
All details available (must read) here:
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1712.01815.pdf
http://www.sciencealert.com/it-took-4-hours-google-s-ai-world-s-best-chess-player-deepmind-alphazero
A few games played by AlphaZero against Stockfish are included in the arxiv article.
Arturas Drozdovas (2017-12-08 21:16:36)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
Just look how alphazero plays, strategic moves that lead to a win. Its impossible for houdini, komodo or stockfish to find these moves with any of the hardware.
Arturas Drozdovas (2017-12-08 21:19:34)
AlphaZero stronger than Stockfish
Probably not a single correspondence player would find a win as black in a game posted above :)
Garvin Gray (2017-12-22 10:06:03)
Monte Carlo Analysis
Time to start a thread on this topic, since it has gained some 'fame' with AlphaZero's win.
I have been looking at it and experimenting with it using Fritz 16 gui, but so far it seems to be only using Fritz 16 as the main engine, even though I am choosing four engines.
I have tried different depth (keeping them odd as recommended) and also both middle and broad search options.
So I am a bit lost as to the value of Monte Carlo Analysis for correspondence play. Is someone able to assist on whether it will show analysis or games from other engines, or how the breakdown works?
Thibault de Vassal (2017-12-22 23:28:18)
Monte Carlo Analysis
Oh wow, it looks like I have no more idea of what Fritz Gui looks like nowadays... Is there a "Monte Carlo" engine or is it a Fritz option? Or is it the old option allowing engines to play each other in tournaments on various openings & positions?
Actually, I don't see the interest of a 'pure' Monte Carlo method in chess as it just looks like a non-optimized search. But it seems to me that it's a long time that engines use algorithms that look like it when it may be useful (particularly in calm positions & endgames). So, it's just a "plus" if you have some processing time to do it (like AlphaZero, having a much more powerful hardware), otherwise...
Right now, I must say I still have no accurate idea of how AlphaZero plays chess.
Garvin Gray (2018-01-14 02:43:50)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Projections for the winning score are now being made. I thought I would bring these discussions to the thread.
Be careful about not actually discussing the games as so not to influence those games.
It seems like 9.5 or 10 out of 16 will be the winning score.
For any player to get a FEM norm, they had to score 12/16.
Now looking at this field and how the scores have panned out, does 75% seems rather unrealistic?
9.5/16 has already been recorded by Ortiz, so use a golfing analogy. Ortiz is in the clubhouse with 9.5 and everyone else is still on course playing out their last holes.
Anything less than 9.5 is no good.
Quite a few players still have so many games still going that making predictions is a rather forlorn exercise at this stage.
Garvin Gray (2018-01-17 12:57:54)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Kym: Point 2- regarding whether to allow more than one line of conditional moves.
I think it is important to introduce a concept now called project scope. What this means is setting the outer limits of the project and also what are the main aims, or purpose of the project.
Anything that is outside of these aims, is outside of the project scope and is rejected.
As was stated by yourself in the first post:
I've used a site in the past with conditional moves. VERY handy!
Especially for forced moves or obvious moves.
For those against the idea - you don't have to use the feature :)
It would speed up games for those that want to use it.
And then Herbert Kruse said- I like that idea.
So that gives a very good idea of what the project scope is, or the reason for allowing conditional moves- to allow players to make forced moves or obvious moves through conditional moves.
An issue that already occurs in correspondence chess is players either resigning by mistake, move slips, or other mistakes.
Introducing conditional moves will increase the possibility of this occurring. This is why the number of conditional moves must be kept to a minimum, hence why I believe the requirement for linear conditional moves.
This also makes it much easier to deal with draw offers.
Clodomiro Ortiz (2018-01-18 10:55:56)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Dear chessfriends,as someone nicely said,I am now at the clubhouse.i like that..On that account,i think legitimate to extend my congratulations,in advance,to the winner or winners of this first CHESS CUP,no matter who might be,because they are not responsible that anything can happen..what a lesson..Thanks for letting me be part of this event..Yesterday i was only ringing the bells before DEATH KNOCKS AT THE DOOR..WAKE UP my family,WAKEUP LEGITIMACY,that is my wife name,GET VACATION if necessary those who may feel tired at the final stage,,,SPECIAL THANKS FROM MY HEART TO THIBAULT,for keeping on,although not everyone is always satisfied,chess is beautiful but men not so much..What a wonderful world anyway..finally,i want to point out that nobody gave me one single point.What is not too bad...GOOD LUCK..Now i go silent until the end...
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-20 20:30:32)
Names updated (the accents issue)
Hi all,
Finally, I just removed all special characters (accents & others) from first names, last names, names in the games & names in the forum, names in games discussions...
This is a very strange issue since the last server update (following the last server crash), as several characters sets/encodings were used and I did not find a way to make it compatible.
To be continued...
Garvin Gray (2018-01-22 01:08:34)
Conditional chess moves (again)
The rules of the site already permit players to claim 6 man tablebase positions, when they appear on the board, as either a win or draw, even if the position is above 50 moves.
That rule is standard across all webserver sites.
Also, even though a position might say mate in 75 and the claim is granted, this does not mean it is outside of the 50 move rule as there maybe a capture or pawn move between the initial position and mate.
Herbert Kruse (2018-01-22 09:12:32)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
where is the point in playing with an engine in no engine tournaments, there is nothing to win
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 :)
Kym Farnik (2018-02-16 09:21:20)
Stockfish 9 released
FYI Development builds now have dynamic contempt.
Author: Stefano Cardanobile
Date: Fri Feb 9 19:07:19 2018 +0100
Timestamp: 1518199639
Introduce dynamic contempt
Make contempt dependent on the current score of the root position.
The idea is that we now use a linear formula like the following to decide
on the contempt to use during a search :
contempt = x + y * eval
where x is the base contempt set by the user in the "Contempt" UCI option,
and y * eval is the dynamic part which adapts itself to the estimation of
the evaluation of the root position returned by the search. In this patch,
we use x = 18 centipawns by default, and the y * eval correction can go
from -20 centipawns if the root eval is less than -2.0 pawns, up to +20
centipawns when the root eval is more than 2.0 pawns.
To summarize, the new contempt goes from -0.02 to 0.38 pawns, depending if
Stockfish is losing or winning, with an average value of 0.18 pawns by default.
Herbert Kruse (2023-01-02 03:02:55)
poker reflection time
2016.11.04 began the Poker World Championship number 12 but I don't know what the price for winning is, just that I won it now
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 âThe Poker mindsetâ 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 BogotÃĄ, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-15 02:25:51)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Note that I did not ask true technical questions about poker... by the way a friend of mine just suggested that it could be interesting to know what limits such a player is used to, his winrate in bb/100 or ptbb if he plays cash games, also if he studied gto applied to chess...
So many possible questions and so few time :)
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-27 02:19:00)
Ratings inflation period
Dear chessfriends, in order to make FICGS correspondence chess ratings somewhat more coherent with other ones & with the real chess level (which is quite important in many points of view), we start an "inflation period".
During this time (that will last several months or maybe a few years according to the effects), the rating calculation will differ as explained in the rules: "During an inflation period, 10 points per game are added to the bonus, then any negative bonus is divided by 2. [Edited]"
As a side-effect, fortunately this may encourage even more games and more wins :)
Let's just wait and see the evolution in the next rating lists, then there may be adjustments.
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 (2018-04-07 20:01:26)
unable to play my move!
Hello Aniruddha, well that's the first time I see that strange bug. I don't understand yet how it happened but you probably entered it (meaning Ng4 I guess) in the text field rather than clicking the pieces.
I'll investigate to avoid this in the future. Meanwhile & unfortunately, according to the rules, this game must be declared as a win for your opponent. Very sorry about that.
Paul Campanella (2018-04-09 02:31:01)
Real Poker Game
This might seem like a farfetched/crazy thought, but what if were to actually have a real Texas Holdem Game sometime this summer with the top 10 players on the list physically meeting in person at an agreed upon location?
In order to promote the site, the winners could also donate a portion of the winnings to an agreed upon charity/word organization that helps people?
Does anyone have any thoughts about this?
William Taylor (2018-04-15 14:07:42)
Big chess castling
Thibault,
Have you ever considered allowing players to castle twice in big chess, giving a mechanism to allow similar castled positions to normal chess? For example, from the starting position the king could castle once to kingside, ending up on l1 with the rook on m1, and then again, ending up on p1, with the rook on o1. He could also go the other way, finishing on c1 after castling twice.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-05-11 01:54:44)
New domain names for FICGS apps
Quite good news for FICGS !
As you may know, .app domains are available for a few days... I was not able to take the very best domain names (chess.app & ajedrez.app), but very good ones anyway. I hope more players will come from Google to the following:
playchess.app (english)
jugarajedrez.app (spanish)
xadrez.app (portuguese)
echecs.app (french)
These ones should be online with the Chess Trainer app within a few days... By the way I also bought:
pokerholdem.app
playgogames.app
It is really hard to find good keywords in english for the Go game... Maybe baduk.app & weiqi.app would have been better but not so sure.
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 :)
Steven DuCharme (2018-06-12 01:45:25)
Free Digital Chess Magazine
sign up for emails from newinchess.com asap
Thibault de Vassal (2018-06-30 20:22:16)
Interview with 15th chess WCH finalist
For once, as Eros & I couldn't find much more to say after all his consecutive wins, I asked Ramil Germanes these few questions around his match & correspondence chess (with what may look like a quite surprising conclusion).
_______________________
- Hello Ramil, many thanks for answering those few questions! This is a first time with the WCH finalist, as the winner (Eros again) agreeded this could be an interesting experiment for a change, so we'll probably have a quite different point of view this time! You just finished your games to score 6-6 (12 draws), Eros retaining the title again. I guess this was the first time you played such a correspondence chess match, what are your impressions on this knockout format?
Yes this is the first time I've played a world championship match although I played before in earlier editions of this world championship but not reaching the challenger level. My impression? Its great playing for the world championship but I know its nearly impossible to beat the world champion.
- Let's rewind a few months backward, would you make other choices, in openings or anything?
I don't know. Tbh, I'm not very good on chess theory and not very updated as well. So I'm just playing basic moves hoping for opportunities to come up.
- So, is Eros beatable in this final match according to you? (please give us some hope) ^^
With how quickly you can search information and the strength of chess engines nowadays, its almost impossible to beat him unless you have access to alpha zero (haha). Though maybe Herbert Kruse can pull it off.
- What can you tell us about yourself and your relation to chess & correspondence chess?
I'm just an ordinary guy from the Philipines who happens to love playing chess. But my love of computers is what brought me to correspondence chess and to ficgs.
- Do you play other games, e.g. Go, Shogi, cards games?
No I don't know how to play those games.
- Could you tell us how these 12 games went from your own point of view?
For me, the games went through their normal course. Both of us didn't made any major mistakes so all games were drawn. That's just how it went. Though there were new moves on some the games it doesn't really changes result of the older games played before.
- Would you share a few tips to play good correspondence chess in 2018, or at least to beat the best chess engines? :)
Sorry but i dont know. I will be the new world champion by now if i know, hehehe.
- You told me that your computer configuration was basically a quad-core i5 3570 / 4gb on Fritz GUI (about 10,500 kn/s) / Windows 10, and we know that many of us (Eros included) still use such configs or even dual-core, would an octa-core have brought a significant advantage to you to win this match according to you?
Oh I don't know they still have those configurations. But I've already encountered opponents in Infinity Chess with 18-22 cores configs. Anyways, an octa-core or faster cpu would definitely be going to speed up my analysis and will let me analyze more lines and variations which may improves my overall play.
Honestly, I don't have that much time these days for correspondence chess. In my match against Eros, I had only about 1 hour of analysis time before work and about another 1 hour after work. Since I already have a family and 2 kids, they have to be my priority first. And I think somebody also can relate to this. So a faster cpu would be very helpful in the match and maybe will give a better chance than a slower cpu.
- As far as I know, you love to build computers, did you use or think about using several ones at the same time for analysis?
No. I only used one computer in my match against Eros. I have 2 other computers but both are slower.
- How much time you've been playing correspondence chess & how do you feel the way the game changed over the years?
I've been playing correspondence chess since 2010 and I have observed that its easier to win games in the past when chess engines were still weaker. Because you notice some players depend only on engine moves and engines still commit mistakes and you can exploit those mistakes if you "investigate" further.
Unlike now, engines are very strong that even players who rely solely on engines moves will be very hard to beat. It lessens the gap of players that know how to "use" the engines and the ones who do not.
- Finally, what makes you love correspondence chess in 2018?
I will always love chess and correspondence chess but what makes it exciting now is the rise of the new kind of engines.
Engines like Leela chess zero that has a different approach in playing chess. Maybe more of these kind of chess engines will be seen in the future. Because of its use of monte carlo analysis and neural networks, we are starting to see moves that we have never seen before. Very aggressive attacks and moves defying opening principles can now be seen. Correspondence chess is getting exciting again!
Thibault de Vassal (2018-07-27 01:50:24)
On (almost) global forfeits in WCH
Hi all,
I'd like to gather opinions on several cases that may happen or have happened in WCH tournaments.
1) Let's say that one player lost on time 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.
2) Let's say that one player resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason) in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.
3) Let's say that one player lost on time or resigned 2, 3, 4, 5 or 6 games out of 7 (for any reason)in a WCH tournament, after having won one or several games.
Obviously, there may be possible unfair situations for one or several players, but it is not so easy to find a fair global solution for all cases. Should those wins (by the player who lost on time and/or resigned several games) not be taken in account? Any suggestions for a simple/clear rule?
I must say that I'm not so favourable to add such a rule at a first sight, but let's see how this discussion may lead.
Many thanks in advance.
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).
Christoph Schroeder (2018-08-14 18:17:02)
7 pieces tablebases
Some years ago, ICCF has introduced a very useful rule: as soos as a 7 men position is reached, players have the right to claim a win resp. a draw according to what the tablebase says.
Can this be implemented here, too?
Rotom Monotua (2018-08-16 14:36:55)
7 pieces tablebases
Just a question. Are the tablebases considering the 50 moves rule?
Should a game which is according to the tablebases won (e.g. win in 120 moves" still won if the 50 move rule would settle a draw?
Christoph Schroeder (2018-08-17 17:37:38)
7 pieces tablebases
According to the ICCF rules, a game is won if the tablebase gives it as a win - no matter how many moves to mate are necessary.
The 50 moves rule was designed to stop playing on forever without making any winning tries. It is a logical development to set it out of order in these cases where a forced win can be proven.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-07 16:57:06)
Netiquette reinforcement
Hi all,
Following a few problems of provocation and repeated draw offers, I propose to reinforce and specify the netiquette to help players finding the right things to do according to the situation...
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
Particularly this paragraph:
"It is possible to leave public comments for your games and to send private messages to other members. No player may post in forums or send to another member any voluntary message that contains abusive, insulting, provocating, advertising, vulgar, foul, racist, sexist or other discriminatory or politically sensitive content. Also, no player will make draw offers repeatedly, particularly serveral times in a row. Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game, and/or being immediately and permanently banned.
If a player receives such a message, he may use the "report" link and accepts to use the "block" link that appears then (when playing a move) rather than replying to it. Responding to a provocative message is strictly forbidden and may lead to get a limited access to the server during a few weeks, at the moderator's discretion. In this case, please just warn the moderator or webmaster in private.
To maintain a friendly community, any cheating complaint should be addressed to the referee and should not be made publicly in games comments or in the forum, otherwise with the same consequences. Please note that no time will be added to any clock in any case, the game will continue in all cases, in example arguing to wait for the referee's decision will not be accepted. Finally, you agree that the webmaster, administrator and moderators have the right to remove, edit, move or close any topic, comment or message at any time should they see fit.
Publication of a private message without the authors expressed permission is strictly forbidden."
A big difference (I hope) is in the small add "Doing so may lead to instantly lose the game (...)". Better or worst? Any opinions or ideas?
Garvin Gray (2018-09-09 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
Thibault de Vassal (2018-10-20 03:06:28)
No engine tournaments, no, no
I understand but in my opinion we have to accept this... This kind of tournament is a question of fun (to make mistakes as well) and honor (not to win but to play it by the rules!), no need to shame anyone publicly or to bring a climate of suspicion as everyone can make an opinion by watching/analyzing the games. But yes, it is possible/probable that a few players use engines even there... why, this is quite a mystery but it is always possible to cheat in this kind of tournaments.
As there's no prize or rating points to win, best is to ignore it IMO.
Christoph Schroeder (2018-10-22 18:18:29)
Resigning in poker
Resigning in poker is absolutely uncommon. I cannot imagine any situation in which resigning a match or a round would be a reasonable option. Even if a player is trailing 0-2, he still has chances to win the match. So why would anybody consider to resign?
Moreover, the "resign" button is irritating, because it is unclear if resigning means resigning the current round or the current match.
Therefore, I propose to remove the "resign"-button completely.
William Taylor (2018-10-27 12:03:10)
World Championship Tie-breaks
For many years, the reigning classical world chess champion had draw odds. The chess world eventually realised this was both unfair to the challenger and uninteresting for the spectators, and introduced a rapid and blitz playoff match for use in the event that the players remained tied after the classical portion of the match. There have always been, and will continue to be grumbles about this system (mostly that the classical WC should be decided by classical games), but overall it is popular (as I imagine can be seen from online viewing figures from the Carlsen-Karjakin match, for example) and, to my mind at least, fairer than the alternative. I propose something similar for the FICGS WC match: an advanced chess tie-break match. Granted, there is the same objection as for the classical WC match - advanced chess is not the same as correspondence chess. However, the combatants will already have had ample opportunity (12 games) to decide matters in that format. An advanced chess tie-break would provide much more sporting interest, as the current system is becoming a bit predictable (this is not in any way a dig at the incumbent, Eros Riccio, who is just doing what he has to do, and doing it very well). I think the match would also be great for promoting FICGS - you could stream it live on Twitch, for example, perhaps with commentary. I look forward to hearing your thoughts.
Zack Stephen (2018-10-30 13:14:19)
World Championship Tie-breaks
agree with William, eros can draw these matches with his eyes closed at this point, he can easily be champion for the foreseeable future unless a format change is made.
Some other ideas for consideration: Force specific opening thematics in the final (ie each has to play black/white of a kings gambit, or other speculative openings
Don't provide the +1 day for each move. Make the games a set amount of time say 45 days for 60 moves
Make each side play BIG, random, or other variants as tie breaker until a winner is determined
William Taylor (2018-10-31 14:48:02)
World Championship Tie-breaks
Fair enough, Thib. Maybe Demis Hassabis could win a game against Eros, but I don't see anyone else doing it. :)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-06 15:24:35)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-06 15:25:53)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-13 19:20:12)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
4th game draw again ,
hope not all games draw
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-14 21:44:07)
World Championship Tie-breaks
no , there should be nothing changed , the ficgs.com chess Champion must be beaten to by new champion.
when you look at last match , they have played mostly same openings, not even taking openings chances is it
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-07 14:19:25)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-07 14:29:22)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-15 23:01:14)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
do you all think the wch matches between Kasparov and Karpov were more exciting ? not the first long match
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-07 14:30:24)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-17 00:09:46)
World Championship Tie-breaks
there are different ways
possible to play 6 different own openings whith white and with black
longer time control would be better for thinking
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-07 20:47:36)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-08 18:23:51)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-08 20:46:50)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-17 00:52:31)
World Championship Tie-breaks
chess is a draw game, till mistake is done
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-17 16:05:09)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
this endgame in game 6 was really draw ? wow
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-08 20:49:02)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-08 21:06:17)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-08 21:07:15)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-08 22:25:26)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
tomorrow starts wch match between Carlsen and Caruana ?
this is the best and most interesting now
who will win this time ? we will know it after 12 games
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-17 19:28:43)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
i meant the exciting chess games between Kasparov and Karpov in wch matches, they have both played other openings and mostly main famous lines.
everyone can see Kasparov-Karpov games in chess database
first game of Carlsen - Caruana wch match was exciting too , winning chances
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-09 19:13:07)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-09 19:15:54)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
i hope they decide this match in 12 games
fast games after 12 games are much boring and useless
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-10 08:57:05)
Carlsen Caruana wch match
Carlsen could win first game ? i have not checked it yet
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-10 10:27:37)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-13 18:43:33)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-13 18:40:40)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 16:36:24)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist
sad that there is no comment from GM Eros
for example why no won games here ? next time for sure
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 16:39:10)
World Championship Tie-breaks
herbert! i hope we play soon here a chess match together , maybe your strong computers will help you :)
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 19:55:28)
World Championship Tie-breaks
herbert you are losing too, dont you see it ??
this one game was only one warm up against you , and you forgot to say here that we have played 2 draws already.
you talk always like a criminal
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 19:59:02)
World Championship Tie-breaks
GM Eros is really good champ here , he should stay it
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 20:14:17)
World Championship Tie-breaks
you too and your behaviur
herbert we can discuss in our chess games
Thibault can you delete these crapy coments here again, some unfriendly chess players here
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 20:20:40)
World Championship Tie-breaks
herbert in first lost game you have proofed that your computer is stronger , really
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 21:04:26)
World Championship Tie-breaks
http://www.ficgs.com/player_5438.html
kruse lost 12 games somehow
no matter this
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 21:59:29)
World Championship Tie-breaks
Thibault
i had the feeling that he was talking very unfriendly to me and like a criminal man.
i was talking about chess and he answers like a crime man, very unfriendly he
he has started it
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 22:04:44)
World Championship Tie-breaks
Thibault
dont you see it ?? he has started to talk bad things
or maybe you are his supporter ?
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 22:11:13)
World Championship Tie-breaks
yes and he has broken all rules and still
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 22:18:47)
World Championship Tie-breaks
william you have attacked me first
be true you
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 22:21:46)
World Championship Tie-breaks
and of discussion with you all
you seems to be on one side , this let me think of you
and i hope next ficgs.com is a french, this is a french site not german one
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 22:22:44)
World Championship Tie-breaks
end of discussion with you all
you seems to be on one side , this let me think of you
and i hope next ficgs.com is a french, this is a french site not german one
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-19 22:26:20)
World Championship Tie-breaks
kruse is talking and behave like shit
he has started it so its good now
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.
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.
Garvin Gray (2019-01-24 13:56:38)
James Romig
Asking him to find is the site administrator responsibility. I know that sounds like a buck pass, but as following up on game time outs and other question marks is truly the responsibility of the arbiter of the events, in this case, the person in charge of the site, Thibault De Vassal. Not us.
And also, if we have the correct James Romig, he had 45 calendar days available for holidays to use to avoid timing out his games, so that excuse that he went on tour is not a good enough excuse.
He entered the event and is responsible for managing his time. If he knew he was going on concert, he should not have accepted his place if he could not fulfil his commitments.
Fred de la Foret (2019-03-15 17:24:35)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
I play correspondence chess with a strong chess engine to WIN, loathe drawn games and study the games that I lose to learn to play better.
Miroslav Gazi (2019-04-26 22:48:11)
Chess DB
What do you think about using special DB e.g.
https://chesswind.eu/
Could it be interesting for creating opening books?
Miroslav Gazi (2019-05-16 10:04:05)
Chess DBs for learning and training
Chess DBs for learning and training
https://chesswind.eu/
Any comments or suggestions are welcome!
Marcio B. Oliveira (2019-09-24 21:12:56)
World Championship Groups
What happens if all games in a WCH Semi Final group are drawn?
And if both players win a game?
Thibault de Vassal (2019-09-24 21:33:24)
World Championship Groups
This is specified in the WCH rules (2nd paragraph):
"The knockout tournament is played into 8 games matches. The special rule (avoiding short draws) is that in case of equality (4-4), the winner is the player with the strongest tournament entry rating if all games are draw, the player with the lowest tournament entry rating if not all games are draw. The winner is qualified for the next stage."
I hope it is clear enough, maybe I should rewrite it.
Thibault de Vassal (2019-12-05 21:32:38)
IECG chess-server.net
Does anyone know how things are going at (IECG) chess-server.net ?
For those who don't know, this correspondence chess server was born at about the same time as FICGS (for about the same reasons) as an evolution for IECG where I used to play correspondence chess by email until 2006, so it's kind of "big brother" by history and "little brother" by chronology... and quite different on many points AFAIK.
As far as I know many of the IECG players continued to play there, after that many joined us here (FICGS started maybe few weeks before). As for me of course I concentrated to play at FICGS all these years so I'm not really aware about Ortwin's server. Now I can see that its traffic recently went badly down (like many chess servers actually and even very impressive ones)... that's the reason for this post: any news about it?
Ty Bowen (2020-01-23 15:14:53)
Go needs to be an auto-victory.
The loser beings expected to resign is expecting too much and caused unneeded difficulties. Scoring should be calculated by the client, and a winner declared.
Garvin Gray (2020-03-04 05:29:14)
Wch groups, less than 7 players
I have asked Thibault a long time ago about this topic, but it has occurred again.
The rules for the WCH is that if a group has less than 7 players, it may be played as a double round robin.
I think this rule should be changed to: If any groups have less than 7 players, then each of those groups will be a double round robin.
I propose this for discussion, and hopefully agreement as I think it is not helpful for the event to hold groups of 5 and only have 4 games for each player.
If one player times out a game in that group, then that result counts for 25% percent of their opponents total score, whilst the rest of the opponents have to battle against that opponent for the full point.
So, I believe with groups less than 7, double round robin should be used. This will make the winner more meaningful and also reduce the impact of any time outs.
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. Theyâve 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, âA 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).â 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, âThe 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.â Wow, letâs 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 letâs 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 (letâs 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 thatâs 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 eventâĻ and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on averageâĻ 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 thatâs 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 letâs look at the World Championship then shall we? Letâs 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 oneâs rating is becoming hard. And oneâs 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 ICCFâs proposalâs outlined â21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.â 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. Letâs 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 gameâs conclusion this was the case). Yes, thatâs 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 oneâs 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 playerâs 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 issuesâĻ 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 havenât 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 gamesâĻ 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+ himâĻ 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 âgiantâ 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 thatâs 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.
Ilmars Cirulis (2020-05-08 01:01:32)
Thematic Suggestion: Traxler
When I was younger I was embarrassingly enthusiastic about refuting this opening. :D
Remembering youth, still believing that white wins (with Bxf7) and having 11.16 epoints, I challenge those who disagree to the Silver thematic game. :)
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.
Roberto Battaglia (2020-06-04 09:55:29)
chess archives in pgn
A few days ago, in the chat, I put some questions regarding the existence or not of archives of chess games and their organization. The chat doesn't allow many words so I take advantage of the forum for explaining the matter.
For example on the ICCF website I find for each player a file with all his chess games, I also find archives of all the games played year by year. This allows me to create excellent databases, using for example SCID.
I also would like to add the games played on FICS but, perhaps for my limit, I was able to find only one way to access the pgn. that is: I type the name of a player in the search box and press go. If, for example, I write Fric (Fric Lubos is a friend of mine who attends both ICCF and FICGS) I find all his PNGs but there are mixed games of poker and chess and this creates a problem because I have to separate them by looking at them one by one.
I hope I was clear. Obviously it is possible that I have not seen some functions of the site that allow to access to archives where could be stored games divided by year, by player and by type of game. I thank all those who want to answer me and wish everyone good and winning games.
Roberto
Miroslav Gazi (2020-06-09 08:18:34)
Chess DB
What about using chess DaBABases?
https://windchess.com/improve-chess/22-announcements/105-dababase-q30m
Miroslav Gazi (2020-06-09 12:13:50)
chess archives in pgn
Hello Roberto,
I could provide you e.g. PGN file games for Lubos Fric (or any other ICCF or FICGS player) as FRIC_595Games from our database
on
https://windchess.com/
if you are interested.
Best regards
Miro
https://chesswind.eu/
https://windchess.com/
Thibault de Vassal (2020-06-09 17:12:22)
Chess DB
I did not understand immediately that you were in Windchess team ^^ Sure, feel free to contact me through email.
Best,
Thibault
Thibault de Vassal (2020-12-08 15:33:13)
What happened to all the players?
Thanks for the enlightments!
1) Interesting idea, I did not think it this way but that sounds credible.
2) Too many possible reasons IMHO, first could be the lower rate benefits/investment, added to the constantly growing place of chess engines (particularly since the Rybka era) in the game and the way our lives changed all over the years (real life, social networks, Netflix & so on).
3) That's quite surprising to me but well, at least chess found a way :)
4) I did not hear about that rule yet, what's the idea?
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"
Thibault de Vassal (2020-12-13 11:59:19)
What happened to all the players?
That is a tough choice from Ortwin, obviously... I agree with him on the idea that any rule can/will be enforced, but I'm not sure I can agree with this "unknown" rule, indeed. But it may work.
Thanks to Daniel for the quote and to all for the comments on this difficult issue. That's matter to think about.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2020-12-13 18:44:07)
What happened to all the players?
In LSS, the server only terminates games if a player does not respond for a longer time and the engine used by the server evaluates the position of this player as lost. Furthermore, the ELO numbers of the two players are important. However, Ortwin does not publish the exact algorithm. He only published some examples in advance.
By the way, obvious draw positions are not finished.
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-17 03:26:33)
Repeated draw offers
Not sure there is any downside at all to what Garvin is proposing. That said, I don't really find draw offers annoying. I did just win a game where I got a draw every ten moves for all 90 moves of the game before he resigned.
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 (2021-03-23 19:41:03)
Berlin Defense
i would try to win against the Berlin Wall
Herbert Kruse (2021-03-28 15:10:13)
Poker Rating
This rule has good reasons to be maintained, whatever the game played : at least 10 moves must have been played so that it be rated...
Best regards,
Thibault
and i:
so if my opp goes all in and i have 2 aces i have to fold to get a rating win?
how can this be my fault?
Garvin Gray (2021-04-02 06:08:44)
Berlin Defense
Before giving my thoughts on why white is still playing the Ruy Lopez given the drawing odds of the Berlin in correspondence chess, how many games and out of how many has black won with the Berlin?
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-MustatÃŽla 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 (2021-04-03 12:51:26)
Poker Rating
I really don't get the point of disallowing the rating of short games. It is like saying: "If a football team scores a goal within the first 5 minutes, the game result is cancelled (how dare they score so quickly?)."
In chess: What is the justification for handling a blundering of a piece at move nine (game not rated) differently from blundering a piece at move 11 (game rated)?
In poker, Herberts example shows the whole absurdity of the rule. If you are playing a maniac, such games can happen. What is the reason for not rating these games?
Christoph Schroeder (2021-04-06 08:53:31)
Poker Rating
In OTB chess I once lost a tournament game in 10 moves, blundering a winning combination by my opponent. Was my resignation at move 10 non-sportsmanlike?
The reason for losing quickly is most probably a lack of skill or an oversight by one player. Both things happen every day and are part of the game. No reason not to rate the game.
The consequence of this rule is outright ridiculous: a player who has the chance to mate his opponent before move 10, would have to refrain from mating and intentially play weaker moves, hoping that his opponent will resign only after move 10. I think noone really wants to see games like that.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-07 01:18:50)
Poker Rating
No, it wasn't non-sportsmanlike for sure, good example... but should this game really be rated? (rated for the winner I mean, you lost some points in this case)
The other problem is that players trying to manipulate ratings could do the same and reality is that they do not (or very rarely) when there are 10 moves at least to play, so this rule is efficient to prevent this. And as we all know, no rule is perfect for everyone.
You are right, lasting a won game to move 10 would be strange but it is a choice and a price to pay... the main thing is that it should be rare.
Garvin Gray (2021-04-10 03:20:05)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
As noted by Stanislas Gounant, all three groups have now ended.
Looking at the qualifying structure for the World Championship, are we waiting for the winners of the two Semi Finals to be completed?
That would then mean the Knockout final and the Round Robin Final start at the same time.
In response to that, I would think that a round robin group of 28 games would take longer than a knockout final of 8 games, so the round robin group should start earlier, if possible
Yeturu Aahlad (2021-04-12 19:10:42)
Poker Rating
At big chess, it is fairly common for one side - typically Black - to be down a pawn early in the game. I have had at least one opponent immediately resign. At Go, a player may blunder in a corner and immediately resign.
On the other hand, I have won many games on time and in many of those cases, the opponent didn't make any moves at all.
Perhaps a subjective challenge deserves a subjective response - I am seeing sound arguments on both sides. Suggestion - if a game concludes under 10 moves, and the winner thinks she has a genuine grievance, she can appeal for the ELO grant and a referee will adjudicate. Herbert's case is very strong. If the losing side didn't make any moves, adjudication need not be allowed, or may be automatically denied. Too many frivolous appeals from a player can lead to disciplinary action including a loss of this privilege. (I don't expect that to happen in this community)
Yeturu Aahlad (2021-04-14 20:18:27)
Poker Rating
Yes - the current controversy is not about whether the loser should be punished. It is about whether the winner should be rewarded.
Don Groves (2021-04-15 05:01:39)
Poker Rating
If loser is punished, how can the winner not be rewarded? The game is either rated or it is not.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-15 14:39:10)
Poker Rating
Any player who forfeits without a good reason should lose some points IMO (maybe more or maybe less than a regular lost game, but here it is equal at the moment)... but should a player who wins such a game be rewarded when he played 0, 1 or 5 moves? I don't think so. If it was the case, it would be much easier to manipulate ratings.
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
Herbert Kruse (2021-06-13 15:44:53)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
i have 6 big chess mates now und no referee had made this a win :(
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 (2021-07-04 01:01:42)
Stockfish 14 is out
Recently speaking of Stockfish 13, the next gen is already there: Stockfish 14 for Windows, MacOS, Linux & so on... it is said more accurate & quite stronger than its predecessor. Any comparison will be welcome!
https://stockfishchess.org/download/
Juri Eintalu (2021-10-06 12:35:34)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess
Garvin Gray, Here, I have accepted a draw in two games. In both cases, the procedure described by you worked neither on my PC nor on my mobile phone. I do not remember, but perhaps the warning box did not appear at all. In both cases, to access that confirmation box, I did the following: I marked the draw as accepted, then I made a move and then I confirmed it.
Juri Eintalu (2021-10-06 18:54:56)
How to Accept a Draw in Chess
Now, as a new user on FICGS, I have a new problem. I do not know how to block another user whose aggressive comments I really do not want to read or respond to.
The system of accepting a draw can be tested, of course, if 2 staff members of FICGS play 4 unrated games with each other, proposing a draw on the 4. move. First, whether checking the "Accept" box is sufficient; Second, whether my claim is true that it is possible to check the "Accept", make a move and send it - to achieve acceptance of a draw.
Possibly, there are some time-out problems with the promised pop-up window.
I really do not respond ever again to GG-s empty etc comments.
Garvin Gray (2022-03-02 08:18:43)
Russian flag replaced
The situation between ficgs and National sports is very different.
With National Sports, they receive funding and are playing under the name Russia. Therefore, when that team wins, the Russian Government receives a benefit.
On here, whilst players are from Russia, we are all playing as individuals.
And as been clearly noted in a lot of news articles, most Russian people do not support the actions of the Russian Government.
I think this is case in ficgs where if a Russian player wanted to change their flag to a neutral flag, they should be given that opportunity, but it should not be forced on them.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-05-11 01:02:59)
Carlos Alcaraz y el ajedrez :)
The recent winner of Rio, Barcelona & Madrid Open 2022 talks about his incredible performances at tennis, and how blitz chess helps him...
(spanish language)
https://www.marca.com/tenis/2022/03/07/6225c2c6e2704ed95f8b45cc.html
"P. Uno de los aspectos mÃĄs desconocidos en usted es que le gusta hacer siesta y el ajedrez antes de los partidos. ÂŋMe lo puede explicar?
R. Asà es. Me pillaron con la cÃĄmara en el Next Gen de MilÃĄn y en RÃo tambiÊn dormÃa porque el descanso es importante y mÃĄs en una semana tan intensa en la que lloviÃŗ y se retrasaron los partidos. La recuperaciÃŗn era clave y las siestas antes de los partidos para mà lo son. Y el ajedrez me ayuda porque estÃĄs concentrado, la cabeza te funciona...
P. ÂŋEn quÊ le ayuda concretamente el ajedrez para la prÃĄctica del tenis?
R. Me ayuda a estar mÃĄs rÃĄpido mentalmente, a observar jugadas, a ver el movimiento que quieres hacer, la estrategia... A estar concentrado todo el tiempo. En el ajedrez, como el tenis, te despistas un momento y ya se revuelve la partida. En este aspecto son dos disciplinas bastante parecidas."
Thibault de Vassal (2022-05-15 16:39:20)
19th Go championship final match
Hello everyone,
The 19th Go championship final match just started... late, really late. It did not start before because the challenger obviously stopped to play at FICGS and lost games without making a move (cancelling his qualification), but when reading the rules again, I realized that nothing prevented to make a replacement by the 2nd best score.
Consequently Paul Dao (CAN) is the challenger in 19th & 20th Go championships. Of course he will not have to play the 20th final match if he wins the 19th...
(better late than never, sorry for the delay)
Juri Eintalu (2022-07-17 06:30:46)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
Interesting. Russian defence minister Shoigu ordered the Russian army to do everything possible to prevent Ukraine from shelling Donetsk and Luhansk republics.
The next day, Sergey Karyakin appeared in Donetsk's chess club. Karyakin gave a simultaneous chess exhibition in the Donetsk chess club.
Karyakin announces that under the shelling, he understood the following. It is unimportant to have expensive cars, but it is of the utmost importance to stay alive and to have good friends.
On the same day, in the evening, Russia started the heaviest attack on Marinka - the town west of Donetsk, from where Ukraine was shelling Donetsk.
Karyakin invites all chess players to visit Donetsk's wonderful chess club.
No comments.
Yeturu Aahlad (2022-08-16 21:32:54)
respectful legacy
Today, an esteemed opponent, Aleksey Payzansky, a Ukrainian player, resigned all his Poker games against me. I've been wanting to start a discussion here on a FICGS policy of respectful legacy for some time now. What follows is a straw-man to start the discussion.
1. It is reasonable to require a minimum degree of prior participation before this policy applies.
2. Under appropriate circumstances, this policy may be applied retroactively.
3. If we know that a participant has died, it will trigger this policy.
4. If a participant announces that they will no longer participate or suspend their participation for an unknown length of time, it will trigger this policy. (Controversial - this is regardless of their reasons for doing so.)
5. If a participant stops participating for a prescribed length of time without any announcement, it will trigger this policy retroactively from the time the participation stopped. (Controversial - the intent is to give the participant the benefit of doubt.)
When the policy applies,
1. All of the participant's pending games (retroactively if applicable) will be adjudged. A player with a clear lead will be declared the winner. Games which are too close will be either declared a tie or removed from the record with no adjustment of ELO. (Controversial - time on the clock will not be a consideration in the adjudication.)
2. Returning participants will be welcomed. They will retain their ELO, and their degree of prior participation will be reset to zero.
I would be happy to see this policy applied retroactively to Aleksey if that is appropriate.
Herbert Kruse (2022-08-18 22:25:46)
poker reflection time
if you want meaningful, u go with 12 hours per move, but Thib doesnt want this, because of wins by time
Garvin Gray (2022-08-22 03:43:25)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
As I have just attended the in person 2022 ICCF Congress, and only just seen this thread, I will clarify some matters.
It is correct that before the matter of the situation in Ukraine, the ICCF statutes only allowed for a Member Federation to be suspended for financial reasons, and this could only be done at Congress ie by majority vote of the Federations.
Therefore, with the situation in Ukraine, the ICCF EB set up the Online Congress and proposals were arranged to deal with that situation. All proposals were designed only to last until the 2022 Congress in Glasgow ie they would be reviewed at the 2022 Congress and the Member Federations would vote again on whether to keep any sanctions, or not.
At the Extraordinary Congress- The Member Federations decided to vote to suspend both Russia and Belarus Federations, but not the individual players.
First of all, there needed to be a vote to change the Statutes, this is what required the 2/3 vote. And the count for the 2/3's is a simple 2/3 majority- For - Against, abstains don't count.
If abstains were to count, then the term would be an absolute majority. That is not the case here. It is a simple 2/3 majority to change the Statutes.
As is pointed out, 'However, that EC was online.' Hence why the Statues proposals vote was first.
If it did not receive the 2/3 simple majority and the Member Federations did not approve the change to allowing Member Federations to be suspended for non financial reasons, then all the other proposals would be null and void, no further voting would take place on the other proposals and no action could be taken against Russia or Belarus until the 2022 in person Congress in Glasgow.
And at the 2022 Congress, this suspension of the Russian and Belarus Federations were continued until the 2023 ICCF Congress in Amsterdam.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-10-03 22:03:58)
Number of moves affect the ratng result?
Hmm no, I don't think so. (not the same in case of a win indeed)
Patrycja Zerowska (2022-10-06 09:54:59)
Threefold repetition
It seems that there is no way to claim a draw by threefold repetition on this site. In the game 136386, where I have Black, the position that occurred after my 50th move, is the same as that after my 58th move, and will be the same after my intended 60th move, namely 60... Bf7. I therefore claim a draw in this game.
Since apparently there is no "automatic arbiter" to process the claim, I called the "referee" on 1 October 2022 (5 days ago), explaining that I made a draw claim as described above (and mentioning my intended move), but I haven't received a reaction yet.
This particular game has been a dead draw at least since move 35. I offered a draw after my 35th move and on my 59th move. Both offers were declined.
1. Why is there no automatic arbiter which processes draw claims? If I am not mistaken, this site exists more than 15 years already, and yet the Laws of Chess are not yet fully implemented.
2. Why can't I stop my clock when I make such a claim? See art. 9.5 of FIDE's Laws of Chess.
3. Why doesn't the arbiter or the referee stop my clock? Without this, a player making a claim can timeout, or, when she is short on time, may be reluctant to make a draw claim.
4. Why doesn't the referee take action? Is there a referee at all?
In the rules section of this site I read: "Also, there is no way to stop the clocks, players cannot claim that they stopped to play after they called the referee for any reason..." This is a violation of the rules of chess; it implies that on this site it is not chess that is being played, but a weird chess variant. Of course I disagree with this corruption of the playing rules, and so should everyone who call themselves chess players!
Your strange rules also state that the referee will "act as soon as possible", but so far, after five days, no referee has shown up. So you are not even acting in agreement to your own rules.
Finally, I find in your rules the following statement: "All games are played until a player resign, accept draw, or lose on time." This is the most ridiculous "rule" I have ever encountered. Not only renders this farcical rule a win by checkmate illegitimate, it is a blatant ignoring of the Laws of Chess, which allow games to be ended by accepted draw claims, or for any other reason at the discretion of an arbiter.
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.
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-10-28 01:45:20)
What about this position?
If white to move, it's win for them.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-10-30 21:39:28)
What about this position?
In such case, anyone can call the referee, but the game can continue during one more month even if it is proven that the win (or draw) is forced.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-21 18:00:54)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Cela fait 15 ans que je joue sur ce site, assistÊ par ordinateur. Il y a 15 ans pour gagner une partie il fallait utiliser plusieurs programmes d'analyse suivant les phases de jeu. Je crois me souvenir que Hiarcs Êtait meilleur en finale que les autres programmes. Il y a quelques annÊes encore, il Êtait possible de trouver des forteresses qui rÊsistaient aux assauts de l'adversaire, mÃĒme quand mon programme me disait que j'avais perdu. Mais cela fait 3 ans que je n'ai gagnÊ que contre des joueurs qui jouaient sans l'aide de l'ordinateur ou qui se sont trompÊs de case en jouant leur coup. Ce que j'aimerais c'est qu'une solution soit trouvÊe pour redonner de l'intÊrÃĒt au jeu par correspondance.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-11-22 02:31:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Voilà un dÊbat qui pourrait ÃĒtre intÊressant...
Stanislas' message in english:
"I've been playing on this computer-assisted site for 15 years. Fifteen years ago to win a game you had to use several analysis programs depending on the game phases. I seem to remember that Hiarcs was better in the final than the other programs. Until a few years ago, it was possible to find fortresses that resisted the onslaught of the adversary, even when my program told me that I had lost. But it's been 3 years since I only won against players who played without the help of the computer or who made a mistake when playing their move. What I would like is that a solution be found to restore interest in the game by correspondence."
Thibault de Vassal (2022-11-22 02:33:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
By the way, the title would be:
"I did not win a game for 3 years"
Anyway, the topic is interesting... and tough!
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 14:49:30)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Correspondence chess with modern engines is a draw. The game isn't solved in the game theoretic sense, but from a practical standpoint it plays like a solved game. Anyone who runs the latest version of Stockfish on a computer with decent specs is unbeatable. That's been my experience anyway.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 14:53:59)
I did not win a game since 3 years
As for ways to address this, if engines are allowed you could have tournaments from a starting position where the game theoretic value isn't clear. Where maybe it's a win for one side or the other, or maybe it's a draw, but it's right on the border and it's not obvious which side we're on. Then you play two games from that position against each opponent, once as white and once as black.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 15:10:32)
I did not win a game since 3 years
In that case you'd need some way to address the possibility that a player could always draw their two game match by mirroring the moves their opponent plays in one game to the other game.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 15:22:57)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Here's another idea. We start with two pools of starting positions. One pool where white has an advantage that may or may not be winning. Another pool where black has the advantage. First player picks a position from either pool. Let's say the first player picks from the white advantage pool (on the border between winning advantage for white and draw). Second player gets to choose which side of that position they want to play. They can either play white but then they have to win, or black but then all they need to do is draw. So no matter the outcome, each match will be decisive. We'd just have to populate the pool of opening positions first.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 16:00:33)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Even the idea of having preset pools of starting positions isn't necessary. Going off my previous post, the first player selects any starting position they like (has to be a position that can be reached in an actual game of chess, so let's say the first player gives a sequence of opening moves that results in the position). First player wants to pick a position right on the border between win and draw, but they don't even need to stipulate which side is playing for the win, because a chess engine can run a quick search and determine that automatically. So the first player submits an opening sequence of moves, the FICGS server runs a quick evaluation with Stockfish or whatever just to decide which side has advantage, and the second player chooses between playing the advantaged side for a win or the disadvantaged side for a draw.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-22 16:25:45)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Yet another amendment. From the previous post, we can eliminate the FICGS server evaluation and let the first player stipulate which side is playing for the win. If they assign the advantage incorrectly, this only helps their opponent, so the first player has no reason to lie. Example: First player picks the King's Bishop Gambit as the starting position (1. e4 e5 2. f4 exf4 3. Bc4) but erroneously claims that white has the advantage, so the second player has to choose between playing white for the win or black for the draw. Second player happily chooses to play black for the draw and should have no trouble holding the draw.
Gregory Kohut (2022-11-22 22:30:44)
World Cup
Who do you think will win the World Cup?
Scott Ligon (2022-11-23 21:22:50)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Surely there are some positions where it's difficult to determine, even with engine assistance, whether the position is a game theoretic win or a draw. And then playing that position out would be interesting. That's all my proposed variant would depend on. The first player looks for a position that would be interesting to play, and if they've done their job well, the second player has a difficult task in deciding whether they want to play the side with advantage for a win or the other side for a draw. I think this would work up until the point that chess is actually solved.
The starting position could be as simple as 1. g4 (a terrible first move of course). Maybe black has a forced win and maybe with careful play white can hold the draw. If I did a lot of Stockfish analysis the answer might become clear but with a quick analysis I'm not sure. But if I knew the answer either way for 1. g4, I could always look at other positions. At least this would be a game where the outcome isn't immediately obvious.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-11-25 10:20:51)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I think you don't have to go as far as to play dubious variations, as long as the chosen variations (for a thematic tournament) still have some 'music' left in them. I also have two suggestions: the Rio gambit against the Berlin wall and the following transposition into the Rubinstein variation of the French defence: 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Nf6 4.Bg5 dxe4 5.Nxe4. Besides, lately I still have won a game against the King's gambit with black. But this is much harder than holding a draw with white, so I would not define success for white as a draw and for black as a win in this case.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-11-25 10:22:11)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I think it would be best to let every player take an equal amount of games with every colour.
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.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-11-25 16:48:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
In case of the openings I mentioned earlier, I think there is a possibility for white to hold on to an advantage. The problem is that with the superhuman playing strength of engines nowadays, one will have to study harder than before to keep up with the engine. But now, after I studied these variations in detail, it has become clear. In practice one nowadays will have to have the right approach before the game to the played opening, otherwise I think it is not doable anymore to find the way to any white advantage during the game. This can be frustrating, but also in OTB chess more and more engine designed defences are played, so it is prudent to study these "unbeatable" defences.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-25 17:10:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years
What does it even mean to have an advantage? Engine analysis has changed my perspective on this issue. From a human perspective, we can say that white has an advantage at the start of the game, and the statistics support this. At the highest levels of human chess white wins more often than black, but it's more often a draw. So white has a slight advantage.
From the perspective of correspondence chess with modern engines, the advantage is shown to be an illusion. It's just a draw. The engine evaluation at the start might be +0.15 or whatever, but if both sides are using an engine and there's no severe time constraint, it doesn't mean anything. By move 20 or so of a competently played correspondence game the engine analysis will have converged to 0.00 and it will stay there for the rest of the game.
In the final analysis, there's no such thing as a slight advantage. Every position is either a forced checkmate for one side or the other, or it's a draw. Even modern engines haven't pushed things that far, but they're strong enough to obliterate our human concept of an advantage.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-11-25 17:26:08)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I am aware of these issues, nevertheless I think I could give any black player a difficult correspondence game in these two variations.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-26 14:55:46)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I couldn't use the link but I found game number 137701. You won against the King's Gambit but your opponent played 3 d4. Which is actually the kind of position I'm talking about. Right on the edge of outright losing and I'm not sure if white is already over the edge. Anyway I haven't been brave enough to try that one. 3 Bc4 is as far as I go, at least for now.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-27 21:46:50)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I think it's better to play a position with players can't open the center. But i'm ok to play a thematic tournament with black and white on bishop's gambit. Rated if it's possible Thibault
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-27 21:48:49)
I did not win a game since 3 years
But John said he had refuted the bishop's gambit
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.
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-27 23:06:56)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Yes John Shaw, I forget to write is name
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-11-29 19:50:02)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Heh, the discussion reminds my efforts to refute Traxler (with Bxf7). :D We had some thematic games where draw counted as loss for white.
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-11-29 19:50:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
That was gazillion years ago.
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
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-30 19:55:08)
I did not win a game since 3 years
In my openning tree of 11 700 000 games with games of big database 2023 + correspondence database 2022 + games play on FICGS in 2022 :
Bishop's Gambit : 6123 Games
Traxler Counterattack : 4293 Games
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-30 20:00:22)
I did not win a game since 3 years
In my openning tree of 200 000 games with games played since 2019 and players rated 2400 and more in big datatbase 2023 + games played since 2019 and players rated 2300 and more in correspondence datatbase 2022 + games played in 2022 and players rated 2300 and more on FICGS :
Bishop's Gambit : 27 Games
Traxler Counterattack : 29 Games
Thibault de Vassal (2022-11-30 22:12:10)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Of course, it is rarely played (and maybe you count thematic tournaments)... but the aim is to find complex lines that decrease the rate of draws, right?
Stanislas Gounant (2022-11-30 23:08:17)
I did not win a game since 3 years
I think the meanning of this topic is now to find some positions where theory is unclear I think it's the case of the bishop's gambit, and for the traxler, i think there is not a lot of games because it is refuted
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-12-03 21:58:05)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Maybe someone wants to play Bishop gambit thematic games/matches? I'm interested.
But not the fast time control... instead at least +1 day/move, if possible. To ensure greater quality of the games. :)
Right now I have almost no e-points, though. If that matters.
Ilmars Cirulis (2022-12-04 02:06:52)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Let's solve King Gambit finally. :P
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 ?
Branko Kosic (2023-02-02 14:38:16)
Advertising a win or a draw with 7th or
How can I advertise a win or a draw with 7th or 6th figure base playoffs 1!?
Thibault de Vassal (2023-02-05 20:53:53)
Advertising a win or a draw with 7th or
You found the right way (email or any way to contact webmaster)...
As of January 2023, rule is :
"11. 5. Adjudications
In some cases, the game continues but the result is obvious.
If time control is superior to 1 day and if a player doesn't want to resign (or accept draw) and obviously last the game, his opponent may report to referee a first time. If the player takes 30 days more to finish the game, his opponent may call referee another time, then the game will be adjudicated. An analysis submitted by a player should contain sufficient information so that no doubt is possible. This may include a sequence of moves, but in some circumstances it may be sufficient to claim a win or a draw on the basis of material or positional advantage. Final decision belongs to referee."
John Liang (2023-02-21 14:55:22)
I did not win a game since 3 years
me eigher
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-03 02:14:47)
GUI for Big Chess?
I tried the winboard for that purpose but Winboard has extremely weird/annoying way of adding variations to the game file.
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-03 02:21:04)
GUI for Big Chess?
Also, Winboard is not going to accept Big Chess games copied from FICGS because it only knows stadard notation (for example, Nj4 etc.).
When I tried doing some analysis, I just copied FEN of Big Chess starting position (but FEN of some other position also works) and then I was free to move pieces around.
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-03 02:37:55)
GUI for Big Chess?
And now you can move pieces around. But don't ask me about making variations, because Winboard's idea of that is awful. :(
Yeturu Aahlad (2023-06-03 21:23:49)
GUI for Big Chess?
Ilmars, which version of winboard are you using? In 4.8.0, "standard" is "normal". With that, I have reproduced your instructions - Thanks!
File->save game and save position are useful, but the saved files can't just be reopened with a double-click. The board size is not represented in the files. Repeating Ilmars' first step, then file->load game or load position works.
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!)
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2023-08-18 14:32:53)
Next thematic tournament
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. d3 h6 5. c3 d6 6. Nbd2 g5
Two knights defence, pianissimo invitation, declined. Played by some top gm's like Caruana. Seems to give white an edge, but is it winning?
Vadrya Pokshtya (2023-11-03 07:37:46)
Battle of Kings
As the inventor of many chess variants that can be played on the Internet, I want to share with you a mind-blowing chess variant.
Iâm sure youâve never seen anything like this before, and Iâll say without undue modesty that this is perhaps my best creation.
https://www.chessvariants.com/rules/battle-of-kings-
or more detailed here:
https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/battle-of-the-kings-is-a-chess-variant-that-drives-you-crazy
Give it a try against a bot (no registration required): https://dagazproject.github.io/checkmate/botk.htm
Feel free to implement it here if you see fit.
Regards,
Vadrya Pokshtya
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-05 18:00:41)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
The following paragraph was added after the publication of the first version of the Public Appeal:
âHowever, at a non-individual, organisational, official level, the third point above, which calls for public condemnation of Israelâs actions, should be avoided. Notably, the Israeli police have threatened to severely punish anyone who criticises Israelâs current military action in the Gaza Strip. It is unreasonable to formally demand that a sports person should make such a statement, which would result in him being punished by the authorities in his own country.â
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-16 23:40:31)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
Herbert Kruse:
"you ignore, who is victim and who startet it"
I do not ignore anything, but it is you who ignores everything relevant:
1) You ignore the text of my Public Appeal and the arguments presented there, and I have already said that above.
2) You ignore the definitions of "war crime" and "genocide". Above, I have even inserted some links to international conventions.
3) You ignore my replies. Above, I just explained to you that war crime is a war crime, and genocide is a genocide independently of the previous history. Who started the war or whether the opponent committed some war crimes earlier is irrelevant.
4) You also ignore the history. The Israel/Palestine wars started already in 1948. On 09 April 1948, one radical Zionist group committed a massacre of Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassin.
5) You also ignore the documents concerning the current background. In the United Nations documentation, it is stated that the Gaza Strip is a territory occupied by Israel. There are other such territories. The UN documentation uses the phrase "Israel and occupied Palestinian territories".
"inhumnan war crimes by Hamas caused this"
It is more precise to say that Hamas's attack PROVOKED Israel's reaction.
"Hamas strategy is to hide after civiliens, thats so obvious and you fall for it"
I cannot speak with someone who arbitrarily ascribes to me some thoughts or attitudes I do not have.
The use of human shields by Hamas in no way justifies Israel's current massacres in the Gaza Strip.
Your argument is based on not knowing what is and what is not a war crime and what exactly is written in, e.g., the Genova Convention. It is also based on ignoring the text of my Public Appeal.
I cannot continue the discussion with you because you violate the most basic principles of meaningful discussion.
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-18 03:57:22)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
to Thibault de Vassal:
"Recently, Hamas chose to attack civilians instead of Israel (this is a war crime, no ambiguity there), Israel now does everything to destroy Hamas, making many victims among civilians. But this may not be war crimes according to definition. Nothing obvious there, we'll see."
The 07 October attack is quite recent, and I would not say that all the circumstances are clear. For example, I am not sure that Hamas "chose" to kill civilians.
The only thing that is sure is that some number of civilians were killed by Hamas. It is sure, because Israel accuses Hamas of killing the civilians, and one of Hamas leaders has publicly admitted, that during that attack, Hamas killed some civilians "accidentally".
Killing civilians may make it a war crime. Intentionally killing civilians may make it an act of terrorism.
After the 07 October attack, Israel has killed awfully many civilians in the Gaza Strip. I totally agree with those experts who say that such a bombing of the sieged territory is not self-defence and it is a war crime - at the very least.
Note that during the 07 October attack, approximately 1200 people were killed, some of them were soldiers, and the others were civilians, many of them unarmed civilians.
Under Israel's bombs, in the Gaza Strip, during one month, more than 10,000 unarmed civilians were killed. Most of them were women and children. And it has not yet ended.
As of now, no one of the participants in the present discussion has said anything at all about the content of my Public Appeal. It seems that no one has even read it, despite I inserted the link into my initial post. I did not try to present the text directly here, on the Forum, as it was perhaps too lengthy for the Forum.
I shall provide the link to my Public Appeal again:
https://medium.com/@eintalu/a-public-appeal-to-chess-organisations-on-the-bombing-of-the-gaza-strip-be56afd3f5ca
Concerning civilian causalities of the Gaza bombing, and the comparison of the Ukraine war and the Israel war, I provided the following information in my Public Appeal:
<International organisations confirm that Israel has managed to kill more children in the Gaza Strip in one month in 2023 than were killed in all the war zones on the planet in the whole of 2022. In fact, significantly more children have been killed by Israeli bombs in one month than in two years of war in Ukraine. See also, e.g.:
âGAZA: 3,195 CHILDREN KILLED IN THREE WEEKS SURPASSES ANNUAL NUMBER OF CHILDREN KILLED IN CONFLICT ZONES SINCE 2019â
Save the Children, 29 October 2023
https://www.savethechildren.net/news/gaza-3195-children-killed-three-weeks-surpasses-annual-number-children-killed-conflict-zones# >
Now, while talking about the attacks on civilians, you (as other participants of the discussion) simply ignore my Public Appeal.
Concerning your political views about the real intentions of Russia when starting a war against Ukraine, what you present dogmatically and without evidence - the only sober reply is that dogmatically and without evidence, one could as well assert whatever about the Israeli real intentions concerning the Gaza war.
However, we have direct evidence from the public speeches of Israel's leadership, that the intentions of the Gaza war are genocidal.
I conclude that you are trying to whitewash Israeli large-scale war crimes and crimes against humanity while ignoring the text of my Public Appeal.
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-19 00:58:48)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
ARGUMENTS CONCERNING THE RUSSIA/UKRAINE WAR
None of the commentators explained why it was necessary and reasonable to politicise sports and to impose sanctions on Russia and Belarus. No one answered my corresponding arguments from my Public Appeal. No one explained why the sanctions were imposed on Russia for the invasion of Ukraine, while no sanctions were imposed on the US for the occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan.
HERBERT KRUSE PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING "ARGUMENT":
"like Ukraine Israel had its "Butcha" at the music festival, so who attacked?
and there were constant rockets on Israel from Gaza, should they just allow it?
and the hostiges should just given up?
if my state can not defend me, maybe u can help?!"
This emotional and psychological manipulation completely ignored all my relevant arguments and explanations.
Now, let us take only the first phrase of this mumbo-jumbo:
"like Ukraine Israel had its 'Butcha' at the music festival, so who attacked?"
My Public Appeal was about chess sanctions. Now, the data are as follows:
2022, February 24:
Russia started its invasion of Ukraine
2022, February 27:
An extraordinary meeting of the FIDE Council was held on the current situation and the urgent measures to be taken after the military action launched by Russia in Ukraine.
https://fide.com/news/1603
Thus, it seems that they waited for the beginning of the Russian invasion and had a plan for how to react, as they responded only a few days later.
Israel had occupied Palestinian territories for 55 years, but the chess federation FIDE had never reacted.
2022, March 16:
Russia and Belarus teams suspended from FIDE competitions.
https://fide.com/news/1638
2022, March 30:
Russian troops leave Bucha (near Kyiv).
2022, April 01:
The corpses in Bucha were discovered.
Now, the first obvious problem with Herbert Kruse's "argument" is that the timeline proves that the chess sanctions on Russia were imposed BEFORE the corpses in Bucha were discovered.
The second problem is that he does not know or pretends not to know the definitions of such terms as "war crime".
The third problem is that, as a matter of fact, we do NOT know WHEN these people were executed, and we do NOT know WHO executed them.
It is so because there were actually TWO massacres in Bucha.
The shelling killed some people, "The Guardian" reported. These people were lying on the streets. The satellite images proved that they were killed before the Russian Army left the town.
However, some people were executed in the cellars. Unfortunately, the satellite images cannot prove the time of the executions in the cellars.
There is one additional problem. Ukraine has not made public the names and personal data of the victims. Therefore, we do not even know what percentage of the victims were Ukrainians and what percentage were Russians.
THIBAULT THE VASSAL PRESENTED THE FOLLOWING SEQUENCE OF ARGUMENTS:
"Ukraine is attacked mainly because Poutine (at least) argues it historically belongs to Russia with no consideration of its recent history & international treaties (and among other reasons because he obviously sees nazis in every people open on what a man/woman/family could look like, meaning many europeans & americans)."
Thibault has no evidence whatsoever for one's claim that Putin "obviously sees nazis in every people open on what a man/woman/family could look like, meaning many europeans & americans)." There is even no evidence to the claim that the Russian administration thinks that the majority of Ukrainians were Nazis. The evidence might be the public speeches of Russian leaders. But I have seen no such speech with such theses. Indeed, Putin has said something else.
I believe that Thibault presents one's prejudices as "obvious facts".
Besides, it has nothing to do with the arguments of my Public Appeal.
"There are few doubts that war crimes have been committed there."
In the Ukraine/Russia war, BOTH sides have committed a lot of war crimes, and it is well documented and proven.
However, the chess sanctions on Russia were not imposed because of the war crimes, as can be seen from the schedule above. The motivation to impose those sanctions was, initially, merely the fact that Russia started a war (not a war crime but a crime against peace).
Moreover, in the Ukraine/Donbas domestic war too, both sides committed war crimes. Ukraine committed crimes against humanity, and there were clear genocidal elements of the behaviour towards the Russian-speaking minority of Ukraine. It is also well-documented and proven. At the beginning of my Public Appeal, I mentioned that Karyakin argued from the premise that Ukrainian ultra-nationalists murdered a lot of Russians in Ukraine.
However, I see that the responses to my Public Appeal have altogether ignored all my arguments, and everyone has preferred to talk about something else.
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-25 21:54:54)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
Herbert Kruse:
"now the russian trolls are here too, its sad"
I do not know, perhaps Herbert Kruse kept in mind, for example, the following section from my Public Appeal:
"Suppose it is permissible to obstruct Russian sports persons to get Russia to stop its military aggression against Ukraine. In that case, it must also be permissible to obstruct Israeli sports persons to get Israel to stop its war crimes and to punish the perpetrators."
Or, perhaps the following one:
"However, the civil war in Ukraine, which started in 2014, had killed around 20,000 civilians by 2022. But, by November 2023, the Russian invasion that began in 2022 had already killed hundreds of thousands of Ukrainian soldiers and hundreds of thousands of Russian soldiers."
You are a moral and intellectual bastard, Mr. Herbert Kruse.
And what if someone says here, on the Forum of the chess platform:
"Now the paedophiles, sodomites and corpse-eaters are here too, its sad."
How would you publicly prove here, on the Forum, that you are not a paedophile, sodomite and corpse-eater?
Garvin Gray (2023-12-02 11:01:06)
Referee Adjudication
And this is a rule that really does need changing. As soon as the 7 man tablebase position has arisen, the player should be able to claim for win or draw and as soon as the result is verified, the game is over.
Allowing the other player to continue playing when the result is clear from the tablebase position is just pointlessly delaying of the game and can lead to claims of dead man defense.
I really do not understand why Thibault sticks with this outdated policy when as soon as the 7 man position arises, the result is clear and the position should be declared as such.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-12-15 01:51:10)
Referee Adjudication
Well, I thought that a one month limit for the game to finish could satisfy everyone...
IMO, that's quite strange to end a game when some players do NOT use 7-pieces tablebases and still could make mistakes in a winning or drawish position...
Ilmars Cirulis (2024-01-06 20:27:54)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
Does someone want to test this variation (to play it with white and try to win):
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. Nxf7 Kxf7 7. Qf3+ Ke6 8. Nc3 Ncb4 9. O-O c6 10. d4 Qf6 11. Qd1 Ke7 12. Re1 h6 13. Rxe5+ Kd8 14. Ne4 Qg6 15. a3 Bf5 16. Ng3 Bxc2 17. Qf3 Nd3 18. Rf5 Bd6 19. Bxd3 Bxd3 20. Qxd3 Kc7 21. Bd2 Rhf8
I'm currently analysing it.
The 21... Rae8 seems to be losing (I lost the game against Scott Nichols convincingly).
Scott Ligon (2024-01-12 01:54:00)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
The Lolli (6 d4) is no better for white. Black survives in the following line, and white has no other options worth checking.
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Nf6 4. Ng5 d5 5. exd5 Nxd5 6. d4 Nxd4 7. c3 b5 8. Bd3 h6 9. Nxf7 Kxf7 10. cxd4 exd4 11. O-O Rb8
1rbq1b1r/p1p2kp1/7p/1p1n4/3p4/3B4/PP3PPP/RNBQ1RK1 w - -
+ (0.51)
Scott Ligon (2024-01-12 22:51:02)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
For the 6 lines I posted, those eval depths are, in order:
46, 47, 45, 46, 45, 43.
For the line with the highest eval of +0.80, the win percentage for white is given as 27.4%, so further analysis might be warranted but that's where I left it. My understanding is that Stockfish 16 changed the semantics of the numeric evaluations. An eval of +1.0 used to mean white had a one pawn advantage (in some very abstract sense), but now +1.0 is supposed to correlate with a 50% probability that white has an objectively winning position.
Scott Ligon (2024-01-13 20:47:35)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
In that case, I don't think white can improve on the following line (depth 49):
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. Bb3 Bf5 14. Bd2 a5 15. Nxd5+ Nxd5 16. c4 Nb4 17. Rxe5+ Kd8 18. a3 Nd3 19. Bxa5+ Rxa5 20. Rxa5 Kc7
5b1r/1pk3p1/2p2q1p/R4b2/2PP4/PB1n4/1P3PPP/R2Q2K1 w - -
+ (0.45)
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:
There are 649 results for win in wikichess.
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e5
The open game is a fight for center squares : d4 and d5 are already under control, and the probable next moves 2.Nf3 or 2.Nc3, then 2. ... Nc6 or 2. ... Nf6 will take control of e4 and e5 squares as well.
Games are often more tactical than in Sicilian opening (1.e4 c5), and requires more calculation than deep strategy. Furthermore, black chances to win are lower than in Sicilian, so I avoid to play it against computers or at correspondence chess.
According to Chessbase and correspondence chess statistics, black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
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 Nf6
Indian defences are characterized by the opening moves 1. d4 Nf6, although they can be reached by other move orders. These defences have a vast body of theory and have been employed by nearly all masters since the early twentieth century. They are all to varying degrees hypermodern defences, where Black invites White to establish an imposing presence in the centre with the plan of drawing it out, undermining it, and destroying it.
The Indian defences are considered more ambitious and double-edged than the symmetrical reply 1 ... d5. In the Queen's Gambit Declined, Black accepts a cramped, passive position with the plan of gradually equalizing and obtaining counterplay. In contrast, breaking symmetry on move one leads to rapid combat in the centre, where Black can obtain counterplay without necessarily equalizing first.
According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 d5 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 c5 Nf3 Nc6
This is the second most played line in Sicilian. Reached commonly after 2. ... Nc6, logically the best move. The play is probably easier for Black than in 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 variation, but it is much harder to win against a same level player who plays Sicilian Sveshnikov. In my opinion, one should use this opening only to obtain a draw against a stronger player, and to save energy.
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange, Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4
The gambit is named after Captain William Davies Evans, the first player known to have employed it. The first game with the opening is considered to be Evans - McDonnell, London 1827, although in that game a slightly different move order was tried (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bc4 Bc5 4. O-O d6 and only now 5. b4). The gambit became very popular shortly after that, being employed a number of times in the series of games between McDonnell and Louis de la Bourdonnais in 1834. Players such as Adolf Anderssen, Paul Morphy and Mikhail Chigorin subsequently took it up. It was out of favour for much of the 20th century, although John Nunn and Jan Timman played some games with it in the late 1970s and early 1980s, and in the 1990s Garry Kasparov used it in a few of his games (notably a famous 25-move win against Viswanathan Anand in Riga, 1995), which prompted a brief revival of interest in it.
The Evans Gambit is basically an aggressive variant of the Giuoco Piano, which normally continues with the positional moves 4. c3 or 4. d3. The idea behind the move 4. b4 is to give up a pawn in order to secure a strong centre and bear down on Black's weak-point, f7. Ideas based on Ba3, preventing black from castling, are also often in the air. The most obvious and most usual way for Black to meet the gambit is to accept it with 4... Bxb4, after which White plays 5. c3 and Black usually follows up with 5... Ba5 (5... Be7 and, less often 5... Bc5 and 5... Bd6 are also played). White usually follows up with 6. d4.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Niklas Hallqvist (1438)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Bb4
The Winawer! A variation of the French Defence that has a tendency to get a bit wild, often with white's king stuck in the middle and a fierce attack from white on black's kingside. Black tries to counterattack on the queenside.
============
Contributors : Toncho Tenev, Niklas Hallqvist
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5
Wins material (JC).
I think it's convenient to examine the possible continuation of the game in order to exclude the possibility that Black could get a reasonable compensation for the material, as many Dragon players are sooo happy when losing an exchange :) (TE)
============
Contributors : Julien Coll, Telmo Escobar
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 f3
The Sämisch variation often leads to very sharp play with the players castling on opposite wings and attacking each other's kings.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 60%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 c5 b4
Wing Gambit is the name given to the branches of several openings in which one player gambits a wing pawn, usually the b pawn).
Most common is the Wing Gambit in the Sicilian Defence. After Black takes with 2...cxb4, the usual continuation is 3.a3 bxa3 (3...d5 is also possible). It is also possible to decline (or at least delay acceptance of) the gambit with 2...d5.
For his pawn, White gets quicker development and a central advantage, but it is not generally considered one of White's better choices against the Sicilian, and is virtually never seen at the professional level (amongst amateurs it is more common, though still not so popular as other systems).
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Larry Wolfley (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Nd5 Nxd5 exd5 Ne7 c4 a6
After Qa4! White has a winning advantage.
============
Contributors : Larry Wolfley
Larry Wolfley (2133)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Nd5 Nxd5 exd5 Ne7 c3 a6 Qa4
After Qa4! White has a winning advantage
============
Contributors : Larry Wolfley
David Grosdemange (1912)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 cxb5 a6 b6 e6 Nc3 exd5 Nxd5 Nxd5 Qxd5 Nc6 Nf3 Rb8 Ne5 Qf6 Nxc6 dxc6 Qe4+ Be7 Qf4 Rxb6 Qc7
it seems win a piece , but ..... how many white pieces are developped ??
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange
Terry Godat (2036)
e4 e5 f4 Bc5
another way to decline the king's gambit .
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange, Terry Godat
If Black wants to decline the gambit and still play for a win, this seems to be the best way.
Thibault de Vassal (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6
The Berlin Defence is logical and solid, although it can be hard for Black to generate winning chances. Arthur Bisguier played this line for decades, and it was later taken up by Alexei Shirov and other young grandmasters. Vladimir Kramnik used the Berlin Defence as a drawing variation against Garry Kasparov in their 2000 World Championship match.
After 4.0-0, Black can play either the solid 4...Nxe4 or the more combative 4...Bc5. After 4...Nxe4 5.d4 (5.Re1 Nd6 6.Nxe5 is also reasonable) Nd6 6.Bxc6 dxc6 7.dxe5 Nf5 8.Qxd8+ (8.Qe2?! Nd4! 9.Nxd4 Qxd4 favors Black. After 10.Rd1, Bg4!? 11.Rxd4 Bxe2 gives Black a pleasant endgame.) Kxd8 White is usually considered to have a small advantage in light of his somewhat better pawn structure and Black's awkwardly placed king, but Black, with a solid position and the bishop pair, has excellent drawing chances.
============
Contributors : Julien Baudement, Tim Bredernitz, Thibault de Vassal
Premraj Natarajan (1800)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2
When black captures b2 pawn with the queen its called the poisoned pawn and hence white is supposed to win because of this early sacrifice.
This stage its still I believe is unclear.
============
Contributors : Rémi Marois, Premraj Natarajan
Adrian Tan (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6
The Ruy Lopez exchange, White gives up the advantage of the bishop pair, but gains compensation by damaging black's pawn structure.
White has a long range plan of creating an endgame where he is able to profit from a king side majority while Black is unable to due to the doubled pawn on the Queen's side.
Traditionally, this opening has not being very popular at the top level, but Fischer had some success with it in the 60s.
Note: White doesn't actually win the e pawn with this move because dxc6 Nxe5 Qd4 recovers the pawn.
============
Contributors : Tim Bredernitz, Adrian Tan
Amir Bagheri (2513)
e4 d6 d4 f5
The move has great surprise value! One has to hunt hard in opening books to even find the Balogh Counter Gambit (BCG) mentioned. With a little investigating you will find the BCG is covered under the Dutch Defense, The move order there is 1.d4 f5 2.e4, the Staunton Gambit, then 2
d6 transposes to the BCG.
I first saw the BCG mentioned in Richard Wincors book Baroque Chess Openings. A whimsical book on less traveled opening lines with the idea of engaging battle on ones own terms. The book does make an interesting point. One can play less forceful openings that offer soundness and surprise value in return for more frequently getting known lines/positions.
If you are lucky enough to find a BCG referenced in an opening book the analysis line usually runs 1.d4 f5 2.e4 d6 3.exf5 Bxf5 4.Qf3 Qc8 5.Bd3 Bxd3 (5
Bg4 is better) 6.Qxd3 with a clear plus for White.
============
Contributors : Amir Bagheri
Mike Hoogland (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 d4
An old move, played before Fischer's 0-0. After the pawn exchange, White creates a favourable endgame pawn structure, given his 4-3 pawn majority on the Kingside. Black is unable to exploit his Queenside majority because of the doubled pawn. However in practise, Black is able to to create sufficient counterplay with his bishop pair to hold the balance.
============
Actually, I think this is a bad move. After 0-0 black will have to defend the pawn on e5. 6. Nxe5, Qd4. 7. Nf3, Qxe4 does not work anymore for black, because white can play his rook to e1 and win the queen (the queen is pinned).
Therefore, black usually defends the pawn with f6. f6 is not very useful however, and black would rather have made another move, if he could have done so. Qd6 and Qf6 are also good moves that defend the pawn on e5. However, after 6. d4, exd4 7. Qxd4, Qxd4 black will have lost a tempo in comparison to this variant.
Contributors : Adrian Tan, Mike Hoogland
Gregory Kohut (1783)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5
The beginning of the end ! Black has no moveoptions and the Qf6-Move is a MUST and not a can.
The following comment is by me (Benjamin Aldag):
The Kings Gambit was good to play in the early 80s. But with comming of good and fast computers, the Kings Gambit is researched move for move in all lines. If both players play the best moves, all white can reach is a draw. But the point is, white has the chance, to do more wrong in the opening, than black. Ok, there are some kiddy-tricks by white, but if black want an equal game, he will get it. Now letz take a look to the latvian,- the Kings Gambit with a tempo down. If the Kings Gambit is bad, why should the Latvian Gambit good for black with a tempo down ? The only way for black is to hope, that the white player isn't prepared for this gambit. There are many traps, but the basics of these traps are easy to see. Black is from beginning on under big pressure and has no dynamic play. In nearly all lines of the Latvian Gambit, black has only forced moves. From now on, i will give to all moves in all lines my commentary. Ok.... i'am not a GM, IM, or FM, but i think i know the Latvian Gambit really good.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Gregory Kohut
Adam Goodwin (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7
Going into the Closed Ruy Lopez.
============
Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Adam Goodwin
Adam Goodwin (1225)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1
Protects the e4-pawn and forces black's next move.
============
Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Adam Goodwin
Adam Goodwin (1225)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5
============
Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Adam Goodwin
Bruno Bragato (1500)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nd2
The Tarrasch Variation is named after Siegbert Tarrasch. This move was particularly popular during the late 1970s and early 1980s when Anatoly Karpov used it to great effect. It is still played today by players seeking a small, safe advantage.
The move differs from 3.Nc3 in several respects: it doesn't block the path of White's c pawn, which means he can play c3 at some stage to support the d4 pawn; and it avoids the Winawer Variation because 3...Bb4 can be met with 4.c3 when Black has wasted a move (he has to retreat his bishop).
============
Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Bruno Bragato
Peter Marriott (1816)
g4
Grob's Attack named after Swiss IM Henri Grob (1904-74).
White intends to put pressure along the h1-a8 diagonal while also threatening to launch a Kingside pawn storm.
The opening is considered inferior for White (-0.32 at this stage of analysis 29/06/2008), but it avoids endless theoretical discussions and cannot be avoided by Black. The positions are often highly tactical and natural play by Black may lead him into several traps.
Evaluation notes from Kjetil Prestesaeter:
I have added all known named lines plus other lines favored by Rybka (Rybka 2.3 mp 32-bit, 17ply). Many of the named lines seem to be more romantic than strong. Please extend the analysis if you have spare time and computer power.
Notes by Peter Marriott:
I used to use the Grob in many blitz games I have played against humans. I actually had good success, not because it is a good move, but because it confused many players. On a chess server, I actually achieved a rating from 16-1700 by playing it. Many, many players simply responded by ...d5 and after I played Bg2, they took the g4 pawn, which led me to win a whole bunch of games by playing 3.c4, with an eye on b7. Maybe the right way to play this for black is simply to play 1.g4 d5 2.Bg2 then c6. Then white wonders what he's gonna do (At least I did!)
============
Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Gary Gruwé, Kjetil Prestesaeter, Peter Marriott
Florian Cafiero (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 b5
Pressures the White bishop, while allowing the Black bishop to enter the game. Allows only one answer for the Whites.
============
Contributors : Dirk Jan Van Dijl, Florian Cafiero
Mark Carroll (1700)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 c3 dxc3 Nxc3 Nc6 Nf3 d6 Bc4 Nf6 e5 Nxe5 Nxe5
If PxN then white follows with Bxf7 winning the queen (after Kxf7, QXQ and black cannot take it back).
============
Contributors : Mark Carroll
Marc Lacrosse (2233)
e4 c5 Nf3 e6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bc5
The Basman-Sale sicilian.
If white plays Nb3, Black intends to go for some original play with Bb6, Ne7 and often f5.
If Be3, than Qb6 with pressure along the a7-g1 diagonal. Some lines lead to extremely confuse highly tactical positions.
Originally played by british IM Michael Basman in the seventies and eighties. More recently IM Srdjan Sale has been the main exponent of the variation with some fair results including a win against the then young Peter Leko.
============
Contributors : Marc Lacrosse
Adam Goodwin (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O
The move that leads to the Marshall Attack.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Adam Goodwin
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
Adam Goodwin (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O c3 d5 exd5 Nxd5 Nxe5 Nxe5 Rxe5
The key position of the variation.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Adam Goodwin
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
h4
Terry Godat :
As bad as this move is, it does not appear to be any worse than 1.g4. The latter,however, has a following and some literature to its dubious credit. 1.h4 has never been popular.,
Yugi Inving :
This move doesn't really look good. it is an irregular opening so it has to be answer with an irregular opening. It is not an error, just the fact that the white are skipping a turn and begin an attack on G7.
============
Contributors : Terry Godat, Yugi Inving
Kjetil Prestesaeter (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4
Fritz gambit.
If black goes on the defensive, white can get some good play and has many tactical tricks. These can all be easily seen off though, and black can even counter-gambit with a much superior position.
Chessbase considers this 52% win for white
============
Contributors : Ron Keyston, Kieran Child, Kjetil Prestesaeter
Thibault de Vassal (2425)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5
Ilmars Cirulis : White wins.
Thibault de Vassal : It is draw ! :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis, Thibault de Vassal
Ilmars Cirulis (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d6 Nxd6 Qf3 Nxc4 Qxg3 Bf5 b3 Nd6 Ba3 O-O-O Bxd6 cxd6 c4
And white don't have any serious problems and are going to win. :D
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d6 Nxd6 Qf3 Nxc4 Qxg3 Be6 d3 O-O-O Kg1 Nd6 Qxe5 Rxh8 Bg5
White are going to win!! :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Ke3 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 Qh5 g6 Nxg6 Qc5 Ke2 Nf6 Qh6 Qxc4 d3 Qg4 Ke1 Qxg6 Qxg6 hxg6
White win.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Torsten Opas (1541)
e4 c6 Nf3 d5
Zucketort gambit declined - Caro Kann
Essentially the Caro-Kann with the moves jostled around. White will want early castling, or possibly early tactical tricks. Black will be aiming for an influence in the centre of the board.
Chessbase considers this a 56% win for white
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Ilmars Cirulis (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Ke3 Qe7 Nxh8 Qg5 Kxe4 Qf4+ Kd3 d5 Bxd5 Bf5+ Ke2 Nd4+ Ke1 Nxc2+ Qxc2 Bxc2 Nc3 O-O-O Be6 Kb8 Nf7 Rd3 g3 Rxg3 Ne2 Qe4 Bd5 Qxd5 Nxg3 Qxf7 Rf1
White has easy win.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Ke3 Qe7 Nxh8 Qg5 Kxe4 Qf4+ Kd3 d5 Bxd5 Bf5+ Ke2 Nd4+ Ke1 Nxc2+ Qxc2 Bxc2 Bxb7 Ke7
This move and following one is my error of input.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Telmo Escobar (2086)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kxf2 Nxe4 Ke3 Qe7 Nxh8 Qg5 Kxe4 Qf4+ Kd3 d5 Bxd5 Bf5+ Ke2 Nd4+ Ke1 Nxc2+ Qxc2 Bxc2 Nc3 O-O-O Be6 Kb8 Nf7 Rd4 d3 Qh4 g3 Qe7 Bc4 b5 Bg5 Qe8 Bxb5 Qxf7 Rf1
White stands better. And will win.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Wolfgang Utesch (2461)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Kg3 Qxd5 exd5 Rxe3+ Kf4 Re1 Rxd6 g6
... and White cannot win!
============
Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch
Wolfgang Utesch (2461)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Nf3 g5+ Nxg5
The only way to win for White is to manage the exchange of the queens. ... and after this it stays very difficult - but possible!
============
Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch
Wolfgang Utesch (2461)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Nf3 g5+ fxg6 Bxg6 Kg3 Qa7
... and I cannot find any win!
============
Contributors : Wolfgang Utesch
Wolfgang Utesch (2461)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Nf3 g5+ fxg6 Bxg6 Kg3 Qa7 Qh6+ Kg8 Qxg6+ Rg7
...and I cannot see any clear win further on! W.Utesch
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis, Wolfgang Utesch
Ilmars Cirulis (1450)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Bc5 c3 O-O d4 Bb6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 d6 Qd3 Bd7 Nbd2 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 Rfe1 Re8 a4 Ba7 b4 b5 axb5 axb5 Ra5 exd4 cxd4 Bb6 Rxa8 Bxa8 Bxf6 Qxf6 Qxb5 Re7 Qd3 Bb7 Re3 Qf4 Qb5 Qg4 h3 Qf4 g3 Qf6 Kg2 Re6 d5 Re7 Re2 Qa1 Qc4 Ba6 b5 Bb7 Qd3 Qd1 Re1 Qa4 Rb1 Qa7 Nh4 Bc8 f4 Bd7 Nhf3 Re8 g4 Qa4 Kg3 f6 f5 Rb8 Qc3 Kf8 h4 Re8 Kf4 Re7 Nc4 Qa2 Nfd2 Qa7 Nxb6 Qxb6 Qe3 Qa5 b6 cxb6 Rxb6 Be8 Nf3 Qa7 g5 fxg5+ hxg5 hxg5+ Nxg5 Qa2 Nf3 g5+ fxg6 Bxg6 Kg3 Qa7 Qh6+ Kg8 Qxg6+ Rg7 Rxd6
And white win! :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Bg7 f3 O-O Qd2 Nc6 Bc4 Bd7 O-O-O Rc8 Bb3 Ne5 Kb1 Nc4 Bxc4 Rxc4 g4 b5 b3 Rc5 Ne6 fxe6 Bxc5 dxc5 e5
winning as 18...Nd5 meets 19.Nxd5 exd5 20.Qxd7+
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Thibault de Vassal (2522)
e4 e6 d4 f5
The 'Kingston Defence' is characterised by the opening moves:
1.e4 e6
2.d4 f5
It can also be reached after the transposition of moves 1.d4 f5 2.e4 e6 a form of Staunton Gambit Declined.
The first record of the defence being played is Schiffers-Chigorin, 1880. The first record of a win by Black is the 1892 victory of Elson over Emanuel Lasker. It remains obscure, but has considerable surprise value.
The Kingston Defence shares a weakness with the French Defence in the form of the constrained queen's bishop -- and a strength with the Dutch Defence namely the early thrust of the f-pawn, which often supports a knight on e4. (These French and Dutch similarities led to the first, uncomfortable name for the defence: Frutch.) White's decision at move three tends to define the nature of the game that follows.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4
Zucketort gambit (/tennison gambit/chicago gambit)
Essentially the Budapest gambit for white, but without the pawn on the c file having moved (this could be seen as an advantage or a disadvantage.) White looks for early attacks on f7 in typically tactical lines.
Chessbase considers this a 47% win for white
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4
Zucketort gambit accepted.
Black's usual reply to an unorthodox opening. It is sound, but only if black recognises he shouldn't try and hold on to the pawn forever.
Chessbase considers this 54% win for white
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 dxc4 Bxb7 Nd7 Bxa8 Qxa8 Nf3
Logical development, but a blunder, allowing black's superior position and development to quickly gain the initiative.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 dxc4 Bxb7 Nd7 Bxa8 Qxa8 f3
The best move, though the often perceived attack on the black bishop is clearly non-existant. This move also weakens the kingside further, allowing bishop or queen checks later. Black will aim to exploit this. White will aim to defend any attacks and hold on to the exchange.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5
The obvious continuation perceived from the moment white played e4. White aims for early attacks on f7, and this move also threatens to regain the pawn. If black defends the pawn, the attack on f7 will look to be exploited, if black aims for natural development and prevention of an early tactical trick, he will be ok.
Chessbase considers this 49% win for white
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5
A seemingly harmless move, but one that significantly weakens e6, allowing for an early f7 tactic. If white doesn't take the opportunity immedietly, e5 is possible, kicking back the white knight and giving black a good game a pawn up.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5 Bc4 Nh6 Nxh7
White takes out the last defender of the g6 square, and prepares the potentially game-winning move of Qh5+
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 Nc3
Reti - Van Geet
A hypermodern move and one that refuses to confirm central pawn structure. However, after blocking the f pawn, this block of the c pawn can be considered weak and restrictive. If black plays d5 and c5, he can often get a good game.
ChessBase considers this a 49% win for white - lower than the average opening.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 Nf6 b4
Santasiere's folly
A move so named because, when it was first played by Anthony Santasiere, he commented "oh dear, I meant to play it to b3!" Like the Sokolsky though, it is seen by many as more than a Basmanesque joke. White will aim to play a further b5, Bb2 and a4, gaining much queenside space and restricting the development of black's queenside rook and knight. Black will aim to prevent this queenside space with quick counter attacks on the queenside.
ChessBase considers this 55% win for white
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4
Equal popularity with the superior Qh3, but a blunder, as the queen is now set up for the rook to fork it with the e4 pawn.
ChessBase considers this a 60% win for black, and furthermore, 64% if he finds the correct reply.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh3 fxe4
The most common move, and a double edged one. Black aims to gain a huge lead in development, the initiative and a better position with d5. White can take the rook, technically safely, but will need to defend against a big attack in order to win the endgame.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
g4 d5 Bg2 Bxg4 c4 Nf6 cxd5
Wins back the pawn, but probably not the best move. White completely loses any momentum, which is the key feature of the fritz gambit.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Terry Godat (2036)
e4 e5 f4 Nf6
Wade defence
While looking tactically sharp, this move offers black few chances, and blocks off the queen's path to h4. If white transposes this with Nc3 into the vienna gambit, or Bc4 into the greco gambit, black should be ok. But if white plays fxe5 then Nf3, black's knight looks very out of position.
Chessbase considers this a 42% win for black.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child, Terry Godat
I have played this move often in blitz games and rarely had much trouble equalizing. Fischer got little if any advantage against Wade.
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6
Norwald variation
An uncommon response as it brings out the queen (much too early) and blocks the g8 knight, but it does put black clear material up and with no obvious tactical flaws.
Chessbase considers this a 38% win for black, but it should be noted that it mostly just gets played experimentally by players expecting a loss.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 Nf3
The typical, and arguably best way to counter the Norwalds gain in material is to seek a lead in development. Nf3 does just that, it brings the knight to a comfortable square and challenges e5, forcing black to move the queen again.
Chessbase considers this a 52% win for white.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 d4
Norwald variation - Electric eel attack
Possibly the least played opening to still have a name. On bigbase9, only 4 games played d4 in response to the Norwald and thus it is hard to analyse. Black doesn't have any immediete wins though, and after the pawn takes on d or e, white will play e5 and Nf3 for an OK game.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 Nf6 Bc4
Blocking the c8 bishop and letting the queen get to e2 to win back the pawn.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 d6
Hartlaub variation
The initial idea of Henry Charlick when playing the Englund. It's more respectable than the modern trap, but is unsound. Black aims for early development and castling. White will aim to not stray too far behind development-wise, and win a pawn-up endgame.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6 Nf3 Qe7 Bf4
Defends the pawn, and lures black into going for the win.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
d4 e5 dxe5 Nc6 Nf3 Qe7 Bf4 Qb4+ Bd2 Qxb2 Nc3
With a much better position, white should win this.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 Bc4 f5
Calabrese countergambit
A relative of the latvian gambit. Black's aim is a subtle exploitation of white's early bishop choice. He seeks to play a quick d5 and gain the centre with a tempo. White can just play like a kings gambit declined with a tempo up.
Chessbase considers this a 61% win for black, unusually high, and probably because of the many sticky situations white can find himself in if he is too aggressive.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 Bc4 b5
Andersson gambit
Black gambits a pawn for some central control. This is unsound though, as even if white accepts the pawn, black will still have trouble playing d5 effectively.
Chessbase considers this 23% win for black.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Nicolas Vedovotto (2039)
Na3
The Durkin
Named after American master, Robert Dirkin, who probably would have known better than to play it anyway. This is a very strange place to develop the knight. If white wanted the knight to exert central control, Nc3 is better. If his aim is to keep the c pawn flexible, the English, or even the Saragossa is preferable. White's aim will be to move this knight yet again, probably to c4. Black is fine developing normally.
Chessbase considers this a 54% win for white.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child, Peter Marriott, Nicolas Vedovotto
Thibault de Vassal (2514)
Na3 d5 g4 Bxg4
Now the question : Did Black win the game already ? :) .. Such strange openings have at least the merit to create real challenges IMO.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Roberto Migliorini (2058)
c4 b5
Jaenisch gamnbit
Never been an especially popular opening, the Jaenisch gambit is a theoretically unsound attempt at getting an interesting game out of the English. Black aims to quickly develop the bishop to b7 and gain central control, though he is not without some tactical traps on the queenside. White can easily fight for a solid centre, and start some counterplay while black is trying to regain the pawn.
Chessbase considers this a 34% win for black, 32% if white accepts the pawn.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child, Roberto Migliorini
Kieran Child (1600)
e4 e5 d4 Qh4
A variation from the centre game that doesn't have a name (so we can call it the Child variation) but probably should, because IMO it's the best reply. Black manages to avoid any tactical traps from the Danish, and plays on the fact that d4 weakens the c3 square, allowing the knight to be pinned should it ever choose to go there.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 f3 fxe4
Kicking off a sequence that forces a win for Black.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 c3 cxd4
Black cannot play an immediate ...Nbc6, because it does not prevent d5. If ...Nbc6, d5 Nbxe5, then d6 wins the knight on e7.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 c3 cxd4 cxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Qa5+ Qd2 Qxd2+
Eliminates the chances of White forcing a quick win.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Ilmars Cirulis (1299)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Qf8 c3 Ne4 Qh5+ g6 Qxe5+ Kd8 d6 Ng3+
Black win. :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (1299)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 h3 Bg3 c3 Nf5 d4 exd4 Bd3 Bd7 Qe2 Nxd5 Qxe7+ Kxe7 cxd4 Rxh8 Nc3
White wins. :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Collin Bleak (1700)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8+ Kxd8 Bg5 Be6 O-O-O+ Nbd7 Nf3 Bd6 Nb5 Ke7
This position is +/=. In many lines, computers suggest Bxa2, winning three pawns for the bishop, with an unclear postion, but Black needs exceptional care to see those lines through. Working on the center typically leads to equality.
============
Contributors : Collin Bleak
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 dxc5
Black can win back the pawn right away, as he does here. Fritz rates this +1.06, badly overestimating the White position.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nxd4 Rf6 Be3 Ng4 Re1 Nxe3 Rxe3 Qf8 Qe2 c6 Re1 Bd7 Be6 Bxd4 cxd4 Bxe6 Rxe6
White is going to have a winning endgame advantage.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nh4 Rh5 cxd4 Rxh4 dxc5 Qh5 h3 Rxh3 gxh3 Nf3+
and wins
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nh4 Rh5 cxd4 Rxh4 dxc5 Qh5 cxd6 Rxh2 Qxh5 Rxh5 dxc7+ Kxc7 Re1 Kc6 Be3
White is winning, due to the inability of Black's king to find shelter
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bb3 Qe8 O-O Rf8 Nc3 d6 Nd5+ Kd8 c3 h6 d4 exd4 Nxf6 Rxf6 e5 Rf5 Nf3 Nxe5 Nh4 Rxf2 Rxf2 dxc3
Winning, as the threats of Ng4, or Nd3, are hard to cope with
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Mike Hoogland (1764)
d3
I have seen this move twince. it is a very good move for people that want to play whit black but dont have them.
I play this opening a lot when I want to get an initial passive game.
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving, Jose Fernández Bueno, Mike Hoogland
Adam Goodwin (1500)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5
The exchange variation of the Gruenfeld Defense.
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin
Gregory Kohut (1783)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin, Gregory Kohut
Gregory Kohut (1783)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin, Gregory Kohut
Adam Goodwin (1500)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin
Adam Goodwin (1500)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3
This position gives us a real battle of philosophies! White will give his center all the support it needs, since if he succeeds, then Black will be without space and counterplay.
Black, however, labels White's center as a target and decides to attack it with everything he's got. Black would like to force the advance of a pawn, when the squares the pawns vacate will become available to Black's army.
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin
Telmo Escobar (2048)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 d6 d4 Nge7 dxe5 a6 Bc4 b5 Bb3 Bg4 exd6 cxd6 Bxf7+
Winning.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Thibault de Vassal (2512)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Bxf7 Ke7 Bc4 Rf8
The best attempt to save Black, following theory after 6.Bb3
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Graham Cridland (1406)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Be7 Qf3 Qc7
To play Nbd7 without allowing the response Bf1-c4.
============
Contributors : Graham Cridland
Ilmars Cirulis (1305)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 e5 h6 Bh4 dxe5 fxe5 Nfd7 Ne4 Qxa2 Rd1 Qd5 Qe3 Qxe5 Be2 Bc5 Bg3 Bxd4 Rxd4 Qa5+ Rd2 O-O Bd6 Re8 O-O f5 Qg3 Nc6 Qg6 Qd8 Bc4 Kh8 Ng5 Qxg5 Qxe8+ Kh7 Bf4 Qg6 Qxg6+ Kxg6 Bxe6 Nf6 Bc4
IMO White's advantage is enough for win.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O
The move that leads to the Marshall Attack.
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin, Telmo Escobar
Adam Goodwin (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4
Garry Kasparov's introduction into the Anti-Marshall Theory.
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin
Adam Goodwin (1365)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O h3
An Anti-Marshall move that can lead to other Ruy Lopez Defenses such as the Zaitsev, Chigorin, or Bryer Defenses. This move also has its own theory behind it.
============
Contributors : Adam Goodwin
Simon Lemay (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d5 Ne7 Nc3 b5 d6 Ng6 Nxb5 Qb6 Nc7+
============
Contributors : Simon Lemay
white win the rook and the black king is in bad position
les blancs gagne la tour et le roi noir est en mauvaise posture
Telmo Escobar (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 Nxf6 exf7+ Kd7 Rb1 Qc3 Nd4
This is Walker-Bowen, England 1967 (see Chess Informant 4/544). More than merely having compensation for the piece, White is winning because he has four good attacking pieces with plenty of files, rows and diagonals to enjoy, while Black king has no pawn wall to hide behind and his pieces have trouble to play because of the much disturbing f7 pawn.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Rb1
Simagin regarded this position as winning for White. What follows is a try to support that claim.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Nxe6+
Not so briliant because this move only draws, while White has winning prospects with 19.Rb1!
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Rb1 Qxa2 Qf3 d5 c4 Qxc4 Rb4 Qd3 Nxe6+ Kc8 Qxd3 Nxd3 Rd4 Nb4 Nxf8 Rxf8 Rxb4 Ra7
Black has good winning prospects.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Rb1 Qxa2 Qf3 d5 c4 Qxc4 Qe3 Rc8 Rbc1 Qb4 Nxe6+ Kd7 Nf4 Qe4 Qh3+ Kc7 Ne6+ Kb8 Rb1+ Nb7 Qb3 d4 Rf4 Qc6 Rxd4 Be7 Rc4 Qd7 Qg3+ Ka7 Qe3+ Kb8 Qf4+ Ka7 Qf2+ Kb8 Rxc8+ Rxc8 f8 Bf8 Nf8 Qd3 Qb2 Qb5 Qa1 Qd3 Ne6 Qc3
Black has no real winning chances because his king is still facing risk, so he is wll adviced to swap queens and accept a draw.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2055)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Be2 a6 O-O Nbd7 f4 b5 Bf3 Bb7 e5 Bxf3 Nxf3 b4 exf6 bxc3 f5 Qb6+ Kh1 cxb2 Bxb2 Qxb2 fxe6 fxe6 f7+ Kd8 Nd4 Nc5 Rb1 Qxa2 Qf3 d5 Qh3 Kc7 Nxe6+ Nxe6 Qxe6 Bd6 c4
And wins: Black king is now doomed
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Lauri Lahnasalo (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 Nf3
Benko Gambit Declinded
If white isn't happy about accepting the gambit he can always decline it and hope to capture the pawn under better cicumstances. (Yasser Seirawan: Winning Chess Openings p.161)
============
Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo
Lauri Lahnasalo (1600)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 Nf3 b4 a3 Na6 axb4 Nxb4 Nc3 d6 e4 g6
White has a strong center in return for allowing the b4-Knight an outpost. In theory the position is better for white.
============
Contributors : Lauri Lahnasalo
Telmo Escobar (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Bg3 Qxd4 Rad1 Qb6 e5 Nd5 Ne4 O-O-O Nd6+ Rxd6 exd6 f5 Kh2 f4 Qg6 Bxb2 d7+ Kb8 Qe8+ Qd8
And wins. This analysis is due to Sergey Shipov
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Bg3 Qxd4 Rad1 Qb6 b3 c5 bxc4 b4 Rd6 Qa5 e5 Nd7 Rxe6+ fxe6 Qg6+ Kf8 Qxe6 Qd8 Qf5+
Draw. Black has nothing better than allowing a perpetual.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Bg3 Qxd4 Rad1 Qb6 b3 cxb3 axb3 a6 Rd2 c5 Rd6 Qa5 e5 Nd5 Nxd5 Bxd5 Rxd5 exd5 Qxc5 Rh6 Qxd5 Rd8 Qe4 Kf8
Black has winning prospects.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Ne5 h5 h4 g4 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Qc2 Nxe5 Bxe5 Bg7 Rad1 O-O Bg3 Nd7 f3 c5 dxc5 Qe7 Kh1 a6 a4 Bc6 Nd5 exd5 exd5 Be5 f4 Bg7 dxc6 Nxc5 Rd5 Ne4 Be1 Qe6 Rxh5 f5
And Black wins. Aronian-Anand, Mexico World Ch 2007
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2076)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Na5 Bc2 d5 exd5 e4 Bxe4 Nxe4 Rxe4 Bb7 d4 Re8 Bf4 Nc4 Re2 Bxd5 Qd3 Qd7 b3 Bd6 Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bc5 Rd2 Rad8 c4 bxc4 bxc4 Bc6 Qxd7 Rxd7 Rxd7 Bxd7 Nc3
White has now a comfortable advantage, with good prospects for the win (if 26...Bd4 then 27.Rd1 c5 28.Nd5 Kf8 29.Be3).
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Roger Whitman (1971)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Nf6 Ng5 Bc5 Nxf7 Bxf2 Kf1 Qe7 Nxh8 d5 exd5 Nd4 d6 Qxd6 Nf7 Qc5 d3 e4 c3 Bh4 Bf4 Qf5 Qd2 Nc2
============
Contributors : Roger Whitman
Now Black will win the rook, but his knight may never get out.
Telmo Escobar (2076)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 e6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 dxc4 e4 g5 Bg3 b5 Be2 Bb7 O-O Nbd7 Ne5 Bg7 Nxf7 Kxf7 e5 Nd5 Ne4
As played in Topalov-Kramnik, Wijk aan Zee 2008. White probably has a reasonable compensation for the sacrifice- and indeed Topalov won that game. Yet the definitive evaluation of this idea is still unclear. Notice that White is threatening 15.Nd6+ winning the bishop, otherwise Black would advantageously play c6-c5.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Yugi Inving (0914)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 b3 Qe5+ Ne2 Qxa1 Nec3 Be6 d4 Nf6 Bd3 Nbd7 Qe2 c6 Bd2 O-O-O O-O Nb6 Na3 Qxf1+ Kxf1 g6
intending Bg7 to finish black developpement and then Rd7 and Rhd8
Black should have near 90% chances of winning in thses cases.
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O Bxc6
Winning a pawn
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3
A move that usually means a transposition to lines arising from 6.Be3. Yet it is critical if you want to play the Dragon for two reasons:
i) many weak players are prone to play it because they -mistakenly- fear to play 6.Be3 because the apparent possibility of 6...Ng4. So you have to be ready to face this move;
ii) some strong players could play 6.f3 because they're setting a trap, as we will see. A grandmaster will easily see the point over the board. You, that presumably are not a grandmaster, should study the trap in order to not fall in it.
May I add that are two reasons because of a chess move is *critical*:
a) because it is presumably best, or at least it is good enough to atract many strong players, so the move must be studied because -due to its popularity- people will play it often;
b) because it is far from best, but you -that are not a grandmaster- could easily go astray when facing it over the board without knowing about it in advance. So, if you want to play the Dragon -in this case- you *must* to be knowledgeable about the move.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3 Qb6 Be3 Qxb2 Ndb5
Threatening both 9.Rb1 winning a queen and -eventually- Nc7+ winning an exchange. So Black's reply is forced.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 f3 Qb6 Be3 Qxb2 Ndb5 Qb4 Nc7+ Kd8 Bd2
Winning as 10...Kxc7? 11.Nb5+ loses the queen.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Nc6 Nxc6 bxc6 Bxc6+ Bd7 Bxa8 Nxe3 fxe3 Qxa8
A critical position. In order to understand why a single tempo will be decisive for the evaluation of the position, it's advisable to remember that Siegbert Tarrasch postulated that "two bishops plus a rook are better than two rooks plus a knight". According my oddly uneven experience of near forty years of tournament play, during which I lost to many patzers but beat many masters -and a few grandmasters- as well, I think Tarrasch's axiom is correct most of the time. Indeed, *as most players seem to not know about Tarrasch's axiom*, one of my dirty tricks has been to look for these positions, when my adversary think he -one exchange up- is better, but I -one exchange down- usually know better.
In this position, both Black bishops seem to have excellent prospects and, should my dark bishop be already at g7, I'd be sure that Black has winning prospects.
But it's White turn to move, and...
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Benjamin Block (1397)
f3 e5 g4
Why do you help black to win?
============
Contributors : Benjamin Block
Graham Cridland (1438)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 b5 e5 dxe5 fxe5
Black wins the Bg5 after exf6 by ...Qe5+ and Qxg5. The resulting positions permit active play by Black.
============
Contributors : Graham Cridland
Graham Cridland (1438)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 b5 e5 dxe5 fxe5 Qc7
Black wins the Bg5 after exf6 by ...Qe5+ and Qxg5. The resulting positions permit active play by Black.
============
Contributors : Graham Cridland
Yugi Inving (1557)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 Ng4 Bb5 Bd7
White wins material?
Where? I think i drink too much, after all,this fact is not properly explained. could you just tell that playing Nd7 or Bd7 allow Qxg4
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving
Normajean Yates (1858)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh3 hxg6 Qxh8 Qe7 Nc3
Any thoughts on this line? Someone played this [8. Nc3] against me at another correspondence-chess site, and I am ie Black is already in serious trouble after 8. Nc3 fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O. I don't see any counterattack by black!
I mean latvian-fraser is supposed to be in crisis, but is the old main line [ie until black's 7th move] so bad? Or did I blunder? No, I didn't blunder - except by choosing this line [or, except by playing the latvian ;) ]
PS: I (black) managed to win that game because it was no-engines and white got overconfident, but that's another story :) ] For the curious, here is *that* story:
NN v Normajeanyates
chess.com corr no-engines 2008
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 f5 3. Nxe5 Nc6 4. Qh5+ g6 5. Nxg6 Nf6 6. Qh3 hxg6 7. Qxh8 Qe7 8. Nc3 fxe4 9. Be2 Nd4 10. O-O Nxc2 11. Rb1 Nd4 12. d3 Nxe2+ 13. Nxe2 exd3 14. Nf4 Kf7 15. Nxd3 Bg7 16. Qh4 Qe4 17. Qxe4 Nxe4 18. Be3 d6 19. Rfe1 Bf5 20. Red1 Re8 21. Rbc1 c5 22. b3 Nc3 23. Rd2 Bxd3 24. Rxd3 Ne2+ 25. Kf1 Nxc1 26. Rxd6 Nxa2 27. Bxc5 Bf8 28. Rd7+ Ke6 29. Rc7 Bxc5 30. Rxc5 Rd8 31. Ke2 Rd5 32. Rc7 Rb5 33. Rg7 Kf6 34. Rd7 Rxb3 35. Rd2 Nc3+ 0-1
============
Contributors : Normajean Yates
Ilmars Cirulis (1632)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Bc4 fxe4 Nxe5 Qg5 d4 Qxg2 Qh5+ g6 Bf7+ Kd8 Bxg6 Qxh1+ Ke2 Qxc1 Nf7+ Ke8 Nxh8+ hxg6 Qxg6+ Kd8 Nf7+ Ke7 Nc3 Qxc2+ Ke1 d6 Nd5+ Kd7 Qxg8 e3 fxe3 Be7 Ng5 Qxb2 Rd1 Bxg5 Qxg5 Kc6 e4 b5 Rc1+ Kb7 Rxc7+ Ka6 Qd8 Bb7 Qxd6+ Ka5 Rxb7 Qc1+ Ke2 Nc6 Qc5 Qxc5 dxc5 Rh8
Imho, two pawns more - it is enough for win of white here.
[edit]
Ok, one pawn. :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (1632)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Bc4 fxe4 Nxe5 Qg5 d4 Qxg2 Qh5+ g6 Bf7+ Kd8 Bxg6 Qxh1+ Ke2 c6 Nc3 Kc7
If you want to win, play Bf4.
If you want fun, play Bxe4. :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (1632)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Bc4 fxe4 Nxe5 Qg5 d4 Qxg2 Qh5+ g6 Bf7+ Kd8 Bxg6 Qxh1+ Ke2 c6 Nc3 Kc7 Bf4 hxg6 Qxh8 Qxa1 Qxg8 d6 Qxf8 Qxb2 Kd2
White wins.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Ilmars Cirulis (1905)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 b4 Bxb4 c3 Ba5 d4 exd4 O-O Nf6 e5 d5 exf6 dxc4 Re1+ Be6 fxg7 Rg8 Bg5 Qd5 Nbd2 Rxg7 Ne4 Kf8 Bh6 Bg4 Nf6 Qf5 Bxg7+ Kxg7 Nxg4 Qxg4 Nxd4 Qxd1 Raxd1 Bxc3 Nf5+ Kf6 Re3
Sad, but black can't win... :)
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
Sophie Leclerc (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7
This move is simple too. Ne7 take control of both d5 and f5 sqaure, it also control g6 square which just save from a little Qh5+
As for, Qh5+ g6, The queen is attacked, and you lose the knight
Refuting this is not an easy task. And blakc does have well hidden compensation for the pawn. this opening is gived the rating as the halloween gambit.
Black can not come up with many plans, depending where the knight woulg go, Nf3 just mean you have lost a tempo, Nd3 prevent d4, and Nc4 will cause black to play d5 right away, since they don't want a knight on e3.
the f6 pawn can serve later, in attack, with the moves, g5, -h5 g4- h4.
Black has a little initiative, he must not lose to win the game.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Normajean Yates (1946)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 Qf3 h6
chessgames.com gives 27-33-40% resp. for white win-draw-loss in this position.
Similarly, chesslab.com gives 27-19-54% for post-1990 games and 30-34-36% for the period 1485(!)-1990. (Chesslab.com (generally, and here too) covers more games 33+75=108 games with this position, but its statistics include games between weaker players or old games - also.)
============
Contributors : Normajean Yates
Sophie Leclerc (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7 h4
If Qe2, and Nc6-d4 bring back the queen to her start square or wins a rook for the knight.
Tought, h4 isn't the best possible move, The problably wat to stop black from castling.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Normajean Yates (1975)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Nxe5 Nxe5 d4 Nc6 d5 Bb4 dxc6 Nxe4 Qd4 Qe7 Qxg7 Nxc3+ Be3 Nd5+ c3 Rf8 cxb4 Nxe3 fxe3 Qxb4+
black is winning.
============
Contributors : Normajean Yates
Telmo Escobar (1929)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5 Nc6 fxe6 fxe6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 dxe5 Bxf6 gxf6 Ne4 Qxa2 Rd1 Be7 Be2 O-O O-O Ra7 Rf3 Rd7 Bd3 f5 Qh6 Kh8 Ng5 Bc5+ Kh1 Qa5 Rh3 Qc7 Nxe6 Qd6 Nxf8 Qxf8 Qxc6
White is winning.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
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
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 Rf7 Rg3+ Kh8 Ng5 Rg7 Nxe6 Rf7 Rf1 e4 Bxe4 fxe4 Rxf7 Rd1+ Rf1 Rxf1+ Kxf1 Qb1+ Kf2 Qxc2+ Kf1 Qb1+ Ke2 Qb2+ Kf1 Bb4
Wins! Now it is Black -not White- who is looking for mate, so White will be forced to swap queens, but-
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
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 Rf7 Rg3+ Kh8 Ng5 Rg7 Nxe6 Rf7 Rf1 e4 Bxe4 fxe4 Rxf7 Rd1+ Rf1 Rxf1+ Kxf1 Qb1+ Kf2 Qxc2+ Kf1 Qb1+ Ke2 Qb2+ Kf1 Bb4 Qg7+ Qxg7 Nxg7 Bd6 Rg5 Bf4
And Black wins.
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Normajean Yates (1966)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3 Be6 f3 Be7 Qd2 O-O O-O-O Nbd7 g4 b5 g5 b4 Ne2 Ne8 f4 a5 f5 a4
This is more common..; though if black is trying to win, (i.e. if a draw is not good enough) then maybe Bxb3 is preferable...
============
Contributors : Normajean Yates
Benjamin Block (1660)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3 Be6 Nd5 Nbd7 f3 Be7
?! Not recomdenderad but there is some nice analys by some good players+fast computers that even make white win but in the moment black fix a draw.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Block
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4
It may feel appriopriate to move a pawn like this. not on both wings.
============
Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Luc-Olivier Leclerc (1800)
f4 d5 Nf3 c5 c4 d4 b4 Nf6 bxc5 e6 Ba3 Nc6 g3 Qa5 Qb3
A good move, and maybe the best one, one of those move, you got to know before playing the gambit, anywhere, you can't rely on computer...
Same truth for many gambits, knowing theory helps.
============
Contributors : Luc-Olivier Leclerc
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3 Nxd3 Qxd3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3 Nxd3 Qxd3 Nc5 Qd4
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3 Nxd3 Qxd3 Nc5 Qd4 Nb3 Qxg4
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3 Nxd3 Qxd3 Nc5 Qd4 Nb3 Qxg4 Nxa1 Bh6
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3 Nxd3 Qxd3 Nc5 Qd4 Nb3 Qxg4 Nxa1 Bh6 g6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3 Nxd3 Qxd3 Nc5 Qd4 Nb3 Qxg4 Nxa1 Bh6 g6 Nc3 Qb6 Kh1
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nf6 Nxe5 d6 Nf3 Nxe4 d4 d5 Bd3 Bd6 O-O O-O c4 c6 Qc2 Na6 a3 Bg4 Ne5 Bxe5 dxe5 Nac5 f3 Nxd3 Qxd3 Nc5 Qd4 Nb3 Qxg4 Nxa1 Bh6 g6 Nc3 Qb6 Rf2
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3 Nc6 Rfd1
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3 Nc6 Rfd1 Rac8 h3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3 Nc6 Rfd1 Rac8 h3 Na5 Bg5
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3 Nc6 Rfd1 Rac8 h3 Na5 Bg5 Nxb3 axb3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3 Nc6 Rfd1 Rac8 h3 Na5 Bg5 Nxb3 axb3 Rc6 Bxf6
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3 Nc6 Rfd1 Rac8 h3 Na5 Bg5 Nxb3 axb3 Rc6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf5
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Erwin Thiering (2515)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nf3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O Qc7 Bb3 Be6 Nh4 Qd7 Qd3 Nc6 Rfd1 Rac8 h3 Na5 Bg5 Nxb3 axb3 Rc6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf5 Bg5 Qg3
============
Contributors : Erwin Thiering
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bc5 Qe2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 c3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 c3 e5 b4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 c3 e5 b4 Ba7 Rad1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 c3 e5 b4 Ba7 Rad1 Qe6 b5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 c3 e5 b4 Ba7 Rad1 Qe6 b5 Nb8 Qc4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
Nf3 d5 b3 Nf6 Bb2 Bf5 g3 e6 Bg2 h6 O-O Be7 d3 O-O Nbd2 Nc6 a3 a5 Re1 Bh7 e4 dxe4 dxe4 Bc5 Qe2 Qe7 c3 e5 b4 Ba7 Rad1 Qe6 b5 Nb8 Qc4 Qb6 Re2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3 Ng4 Nc3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8 b4 a6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8 b4 a6 Qb3 Rc7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8 b4 a6 Qb3 Rc7 Rfd1 Ne7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8 b4 a6 Qb3 Rc7 Rfd1 Ne7 Rc2 Qb8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Nf3 c5 dxc5 Na6 g3 Nxc5 Bg2 Nce4 O-O Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 d6 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qc7 Qe2 Bd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Nf3 c5 dxc5 Na6 g3 Nxc5 Bg2 Nce4 O-O Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 d6 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qc7 Qe2 Bd6 Bf4 Ne8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8 b4 a6 Qb3 Rc7 Rfd1 Ne7 Rc2 Qb8 Rdc1 Rfc8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3 Ng4 Nc3 Nxe3 fxe3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8 b4 a6 Qb3 Rc7 Rfd1 Ne7 Rc2 Qb8 Rdc1 Rfc8 Qb2 g6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Nf3 c5 dxc5 Na6 g3 Nxc5 Bg2 Nce4 O-O Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 d6 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qc7 Qe2 Bd6 Bf4 Ne8 c5 Qxc5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Rc1 h6 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nf3 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bd7 a3 Rc8 b4 a6 Qb3 Rc7 Rfd1 Ne7 Rc2 Qb8 Rdc1 Rfc8 Qb2 g6 g3 Nf5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Nf3 c5 dxc5 Na6 g3 Nxc5 Bg2 Nce4 O-O Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 d6 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qc7 Qe2 Bd6 Bf4 Ne8 c5 Qxc5 c4 Qc7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Nf3 c5 dxc5 Na6 g3 Nxc5 Bg2 Nce4 O-O Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 d6 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qc7 Qe2 Bd6 Bf4 Ne8 c5 Qxc5 c4 Qc7 Rab1 f6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 Qc2 O-O Nf3 c5 dxc5 Na6 g3 Nxc5 Bg2 Nce4 O-O Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 d6 e5 dxe5 Nxe5 Qc7 Qe2 Bd6 Bf4 Ne8 c5 Qxc5 c4 Qc7 Rab1 f6 Nd3 e5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3 Ng4 Nc3 Nxe3 fxe3 Nb8 d4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3 Ng4 Nc3 Nxe3 fxe3 Nb8 d4 c6 Bb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8 e4 dxe4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Nxe4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Nxe4 Bxe4 Ne7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Nxe4 Bxe4 Ne7 Bxb7 Rb8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Nxe4 Bxe4 Ne7 Bxb7 Rb8 Be4 Rxb2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Nxe4 Bxe4 Ne7 Bxb7 Rb8 Be4 Rxb2 Ne5 Rb4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3 Nh5 c3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 d5 c4 c6 cxd5 cxd5 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bf4 e6 e3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bd3 O-O O-O Bd7 Rc1 a6 Re1 Rac8 e4 dxe4 Nxe4 Nxe4 Bxe4 Ne7 Bxb7 Rb8 Be4 Rxb2 Ne5 Rb4 Nc4 Qc7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3 Nh5 c3 a6 Kh1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3 Nh5 c3 a6 Kh1 Qe7 Rae1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3 Nh5 c3 a6 Kh1 Qe7 Rae1 Ne5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3 Nh5 c3 a6 Kh1 Qe7 Rae1 Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Qd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3 Nh5 c3 a6 Kh1 Qe7 Rae1 Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Qd1 Nf4 Bxf4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3 Ng4 Nc3 Nxe3 fxe3 Nb8 d4 c6 Bb3 Nd7 Qe1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qa4 Bc5 Nf3 Nf6 Bd3 O-O O-O d6 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 Re8 Qb3 Nh5 c3 a6 Kh1 Qe7 Rae1 Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Qd1 Nf4 Bxf4 exf4 Nb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3 Ng4 Nc3 Nxe3 fxe3 Nb8 d4 c6 Bb3 Nd7 Qe1 b5 a3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 c4 O-O Be3 Ng4 Nc3 Nxe3 fxe3 Nb8 d4 c6 Bb3 Nd7 Qe1 b5 a3 Qb6 Qf2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4 Rfe1 Nxe2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 Rd1 Be7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 Rd1 Be7 Bg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3 Be6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3 c4 dxc4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3 c4 dxc4 bxc4 Ba4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3 c4 dxc4 bxc4 Ba4 Rb8 Nd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4 Rfe1 Nxe2 Qxe2 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2158)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 a3 Ba6 Qc2 Bb7 Nc3 c5 dxc5 bxc5 Bf4 Nh5 Be3 Nc6 Rd1 Nf6 Bf4 Nh5 Bc1 Be7 e4 a6 Be2 Qc7 O-O Nf4 Rfe1 Nxe2 Qxe2 O-O e5 d6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3 c4 dxc4 bxc4 Ba4 Rb8 Nd5 Nxd5 exd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nf6 d3 Bc5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3 c4 dxc4 bxc4 Ba4 Rb8 Nd5 Nxd5 exd5 Bf5 b3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nf6 d3 Bc5 Nd2 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3 c4 dxc4 bxc4 Ba4 Rb8 Nd5 Nxd5 exd5 Bf5 b3 Rfc8 c3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 d3 d6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O h3 a6 Ba4 b5 Bb3 Na5 Nbd2 c5 Nf1 Qc7 Ne3 c4 dxc4 bxc4 Ba4 Rb8 Nd5 Nxd5 exd5 Bf5 b3 Rfc8 c3 cxb3 axb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2151)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 O-O Bg4 h3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Nf6 d3 Bc5 Nd2 O-O Nc4 Nd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Nxe4 Bxa7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Nxe4 Bxa7 Qxd1 Rxd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Nxe4 Bxa7 Qxd1 Rxd1 Rxa7 Nd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Nxe4 Bxa7 Qxd1 Rxd1 Rxa7 Nd4 c5 Nc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Nxe4 Bxa7 Qxd1 Rxd1 Rxa7 Nd4 c5 Nc6 Ra8 f3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Nxe4 Bxa7 Qxd1 Rxd1 Rxa7 Nd4 c5 Nc6 Ra8 f3 Nf6 bxc5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 Be7 e3 O-O Bd3
Transpose to wikichess #38214#
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2 Qxd2 Nd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2 Qxd2 Nd7 cxd5 Nxe5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2 Qxd2 Nd7 cxd5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2 Qxd2 Nd7 cxd5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb4 Bc3 Bxc3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2 Qxd2 Nd7 cxd5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb4 Bc3 Bxc3 Qxc3 exd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2 Qxd2 Nd7 cxd5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb4 Bc3 Bxc3 Qxc3 exd5 f4 c5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2143)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 e6 e3 f5 Bd3 Nf6 O-O Bd6 b3 Qe7 Ne5 O-O Nd2 b6 Bb2 Bb7 Rc1 Ne4 f3 Nxd2 Qxd2 Nd7 cxd5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb4 Bc3 Bxc3 Qxc3 exd5 f4 c5 Rf2 Rad8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2 c6 Ne4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2 c6 Ne4 Re8 c4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2 c6 Ne4 Re8 c4 c5 Rb1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5 Qc8 Qb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2 c6 Ne4 Re8 c4 c5 Rb1 a5 Bf4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5 Qc8 Qb3 Bxc5 Be2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2 c6 Ne4 Re8 c4 c5 Rb1 a5 Bf4 Qc7 Bd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3 b6 Bg2
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3 b6 Bg2 Bb7 O-O
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3 b6 Bg2 Bb7 O-O e5 d4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3 b6 Bg2 Bb7 O-O e5 d4 e4 Ne1
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3 b6 Bg2 Bb7 O-O e5 d4 e4 Ne1 d5 c4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3 b6 Bg2 Bb7 O-O e5 d4 e4 Ne1 d5 c4 h6 cxd5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
Nf3 d6 g3 b6 Bg2 Bb7 O-O e5 d4 e4 Ne1 d5 c4 h6 cxd5 Bxd5 Nc3
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5 Qc8 Qb3 Bxc5 Be2 a6 Rac1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5 Qc8 Qb3 Bxc5 Be2 a6 Rac1 Qc7 g3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2 c6 Ne4 Re8 c4 c5 Rb1 a5 Bf4 Qc7 Bd3 Nd4 b3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5 Qc8 Qb3 Bxc5 Be2 a6 Rac1 Qc7 g3 Rfd8 Kg2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Nxe5 Be7 Bf1 O-O d4 Nf5 d5 Nxe5 Rxe5 d6 Re1 Bd7 Nd2 c6 Ne4 Re8 c4 c5 Rb1 a5 Bf4 Qc7 Bd3 Nd4 b3 g6 Qd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5 Qc8 Qb3 Bxc5 Be2 a6 Rac1 Qc7 g3 Rfd8 Kg2 Bxe3 Nxe3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 Ne5 e6 f3 Bb4 Nxc4 O-O Kf2 Nbd7 e4 Bg6 Be3 c5 dxc5 Qc8 Qb3 Bxc5 Be2 a6 Rac1 Qc7 g3 Rfd8 Kg2 Bxe3 Nxe3 Nc5 Qb4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7 Ng3 Na5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7 Ng3 Na5 Bc2 c5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7 Ng3 Na5 Bc2 c5 d5 Nc4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7 Ng3 Na5 Bc2 c5 d5 Nc4 b3 Nb6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7 Ng3 Na5 Bc2 c5 d5 Nc4 b3 Nb6 Be3 a5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7 Ng3 Na5 Bc2 c5 d5 Nc4 b3 Nb6 Be3 a5 Nd2 g6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 h6 d4 Re8 Nbd2 Bf8 Nf1 Bd7 Ng3 Na5 Bc2 c5 d5 Nc4 b3 Nb6 Be3 a5 Nd2 g6 a4 bxa4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
g3 c6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Nc6 Bg5 a6
Transpose to wikichess #39655#
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4 cxd6 Bd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2150)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Be7 Qe2 Nd6 Bxc6 bxc6 dxe5 Nf5 c4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4 cxd6 Bd2 Be7 O-O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4 cxd6 Bd2 Be7 O-O-O Bf5 f3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4 cxd6 Bd2 Be7 O-O-O Bf5 f3 d5 cxd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6 Be3 Ne7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6 Be3 Ne7 Qh3 f6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6 Be3 Ne7 Qh3 f6 f3 Ng5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6 Be3 Ne7 Qh3 f6 f3 Ng5 Qg4 fxe5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6 Be3 Ne7 Qh3 f6 f3 Ng5 Qg4 fxe5 dxe5 Nf7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6 Be3 Ne7 Qh3 f6 f3 Ng5 Qg4 fxe5 dxe5 Nf7 f4 h5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e6 d4 d5 Nc3 Nf6 Bg5 Bb4 e5 h6 Bc1 Ne4 Qg4 g6 Nge2 c5 a3 Bxc3 bxc3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 c3 Nc6 Be3 Ne7 Qh3 f6 f3 Ng5 Qg4 fxe5 dxe5 Nf7 f4 h5 Qf3 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb7 Bxe7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb7 Bxe7 Kxe7 Nf4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb7 Bxe7 Kxe7 Nf4 c5 Ng5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb7 Bxe7 Kxe7 Nf4 c5 Ng5 Rh6 Rac1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb7 Bxe7 Kxe7 Nf4 c5 Ng5 Rh6 Rac1 f6 exf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 h5 Ne2 b6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb7 Bxe7 Kxe7 Nf4 c5 Ng5 Rh6 Rac1 f6 exf6 Kxf6 Nfe6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4 cxd6 Bd2 Be7 O-O-O Bf5 f3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4 cxd6 Bd2 Be7 O-O-O Bf5 f3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Bd3 O-O Rhe1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2162)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 Qe7 Qe2 Nd5 c4 Nb6 Nc3 Qe6 Qe4 d5 exd6 Qxe4 Nxe4 cxd6 Bd2 Be7 O-O-O Bf5 f3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 Bd3 O-O Rhe1 Bg6 Re2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 Bc4 Nc6 c3 Nf6 Qf3 Ne5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 Bc4 Nc6 c3 Nf6 Qf3 Ne5 Qe2 Nxc4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 d4 exd4 Bg5 Qd6 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 Bc4 Nc6 c3 Nf6 Qf3 Ne5 Qe2 Nxc4 Qxc4 e6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 d4 exd4 Bg5 Qd6 Nxd4 Be7 Nf5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 Bc4 Nc6 c3 Nf6 Qf3 Ne5 Qe2 Nxc4 Qxc4 e6 e5 d5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 d4 exd4 Bg5 Qd6 Nxd4 Be7 Nf5 Qxd1 Rxd1
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 Bc4 Nc6 c3 Nf6 Qf3 Ne5 Qe2 Nxc4 Qxc4 e6 e5 d5 Qb5 Nd7
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 Bc4 Nc6 c3 Nf6 Qf3 Ne5 Qe2 Nxc4 Qxc4 e6 e5 d5 Qb5 Nd7 d4 a6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 d4 exd4 Bg5 Qd6 Nxd4 Be7 Nf5 Qxd1 Rxd1 Bxg5 Nd6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 Bc4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 Bc4 Be7 d3
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 Bc4 Be7 d3 h6 O-O
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 Bc4 Be7 d3 h6 O-O d6 Be3
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 Bc4 Be7 d3 h6 O-O d6 Be3 Qg6 d4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qd1 g6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qd1 g6 c3 Bg7
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qd1 g6 c3 Bg7 Bc4 Nf6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Nc6 c3 Bc5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qd1 g6 c3 Bg7 Bc4 Nf6 Bg5 Nxe4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Bc5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Nc6 c3 Bc5 b4 Be7
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Nc6 c3 Bc5 b4 Be7 Ba3 d6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qd1 g6 c3 Bg7 Bc4 Nf6 Bg5 Nxe4 Qd5 e6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Bc5 c3 O-O
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Nc6 c3 Bc5 b4 Be7 Ba3 d6 h3 O-O
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Bc5 c3 O-O b4 Be7
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Nc6 c3 Bc5 b4 Be7 Ba3 d6 h3 O-O Ne2 Bd7
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Nc6 c3 Bc5 b4 Be7 Ba3 d6 h3 O-O Ne2 Bd7 O-O a5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Bc5 c3 O-O b4 Be7 Ba3 c6
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Bc5 c3 O-O b4 Be7 Ba3 c6 b5 d5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Bc5 c3 O-O b4 Be7 Ba3 c6 b5 d5 Bxe7 Qxe7
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Bc4 Nf6 Qf3 Bc5 c3 O-O b4 Be7 Ba3 c6 b5 d5 Bxe7 Qxe7 exd5 cxd5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 c5 d4 cxd4 Qxd4 Nc6 Qd1 g6 c3 Bg7 Bc4 Nf6 Bg5 Nxe4 Qd5 e6 Qxc6 Qxg5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 Nf3 Qf6 Nc3 c6 Bc4 Be7 d3 h6 O-O d6 Be3 Qg6 d4 Bg4 dxe5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qe6 Be2 Qb6 d4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qe6 Be2 Qb6 d4 Bb4 Bxf4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qe6 Be2 Qb6 d4 Bb4 Bxf4 Bxc3 bxc3
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Be2
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Be2 Bg4 d4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Be2 Bg4 d4 Bd6 Nc3
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Be2 Bg4 d4 Bd6 Nc3 Bb4 Bxf4
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Be2 Bg4 d4 Bd6 Nc3 Bb4 Bxf4 Bxc3 bxc3
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Bob Winsky (1800)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 b5 a4 Bg4 Ne5
============
Contributors : Bob Winsky
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Bf1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 Re1 Nd6 Bf1 Be7 Nxe5
Transpose to wikichess #13631#
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6 Nc4 h6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6 Nc4 h6 Nxd6 cxd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6 Nc4 h6 Nxd6 cxd6 Be3 Be6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6 Nc4 h6 Nxd6 cxd6 Be3 Be6 Bb6 Rd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6 Nc4 h6 Nxd6 cxd6 Be3 Be6 Bb6 Rd7 a5 Bxb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6 Nc4 h6 Nxd6 cxd6 Be3 Be6 Bb6 Rd7 a5 Bxb3 cxb3 d5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 O-O a4 b4 d4 d6 dxe5 dxe5 Qxd8 Rxd8 Nbd2 Bd6 Nc4 h6 Nxd6 cxd6 Be3 Be6 Bb6 Rd7 a5 Bxb3 cxb3 d5 exd5 Rxd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5 Ne8 Nde2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5 Ne8 Nde2 f6 exf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5 Ne8 Nde2 f6 exf6 Nxf6 Qd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5 Ne8 Nde2 f6 exf6 Nxf6 Qd2 b6 Ng3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5 Ne8 Nde2 f6 exf6 Nxf6 Qd2 b6 Ng3 c5 Bf2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5 Ne8 Nde2 f6 exf6 Nxf6 Qd2 b6 Ng3 c5 Bf2 Qd7 Rfe1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2186)
e4 e5 Nf3 d6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 Be7 Bc4 O-O O-O c6 Bb3 Na6 Be3 Nc5 f3 Nxb3 axb3 d5 e5 Ne8 Nde2 f6 exf6 Nxf6 Qd2 b6 Ng3 c5 Bf2 Qd7 Rfe1 Bb7 Rad1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2 O-O O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2 O-O O-O Re8 Bg3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2 O-O O-O Re8 Bg3 Bf8 Nf4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2 O-O O-O Re8 Bg3 Bf8 Nf4 Qe7 Bf2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5 h6 Bh4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2 O-O O-O Re8 Bg3 Bf8 Nf4 Qe7 Bf2 Qd8 Qc2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Ne5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Ne5 Bc6 Rac1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Ne5 Bc6 Rac1 Nfd5 Nxc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Ne5 Bc6 Rac1 Nfd5 Nxc6 Nxc6 Bxe7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2 O-O O-O Re8 Bg3 Bf8 Nf4 Qe7 Bf2 Qd8 Qc2 b5 a3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Ne5 Bc6 Rac1 Nfd5 Nxc6 Nxc6 Bxe7 Ncxe7 Qf3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 e6 Nc3 Nf6 cxd5 exd5 Bg5 c6 Qc2 h6 Bh4 g6 e3 Bf5 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Nbd7 f3 Be7 Nge2 O-O O-O Re8 Bg3 Bf8 Nf4 Qe7 Bf2 Qd8 Qc2 b5 a3 a5 Nd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 a4 Nc6 Qe2 cxd4 Rd1 Be7 exd4 O-O Nc3 Nb4 Bg5 h6 Bh4 Bd7 Ne5 Bc6 Rac1 Nfd5 Nxc6 Nxc6 Bxe7 Ncxe7 Qf3 Qd7 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb4 Ne2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb4 Ne2 h6 Bd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb4 Ne2 h6 Bd2 Bxd2 Rxd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb4 Ne2 h6 Bd2 Bxd2 Rxd2 Rd8 Rad1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb4 Ne2 h6 Bd2 Bxd2 Rxd2 Rd8 Rad1 Rxd2 Rxd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nxd4 Qd6 Nxe6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Qc7 Rc1 b6 Nf4 e6 Bb5 Rd8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nxd4 Qd6 Nxe6 fxe6 Nd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nxd4 Qd6 Nxe6 fxe6 Nd2 O-O Nf3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Qc7 Rc1 b6 Nf4 e6 Bb5 Rd8 Re1 Bb7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nxd4 Qd6 Nxe6 fxe6 Nd2 O-O Nf3 Nxe4 Re1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 e4 e5 Nf3 exd4 Bxc4 Nc6 O-O Be6 Bb5 Bc5 b4 Bb6 a4 a6 Bxc6 bxc6 a5 Ba7 Bb2 Nf6 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nxd4 Qd6 Nxe6 fxe6 Nd2 O-O Nf3 Nxe4 Re1 Qxd1 Raxd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6 h3 g4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6 h3 g4 hxg4 Bxg4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6 h3 g4 hxg4 Bxg4 Re1 Qxd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6 h3 g4 hxg4 Bxg4 Re1 Qxd1 Raxd1 Rad8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Qc7 Rc1 b6 Nf4 e6 Bb5 Rd8 Re1 Bb7 d5 Ne5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Qc7 Rc1 b6 Nf4 e6 Bb5 Rd8 Re1 Bb7 d5 Ne5 c4 Rd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6 h3 g4 hxg4 Bxg4 Re1 Qxd1 Raxd1 Rad8 Nd5 Rd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Qc7 Rc1 b6 Nf4 e6 Bb5 Rd8 Re1 Bb7 d5 Ne5 c4 Rd6 Qe2 Qe7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Qc7 Rc1 b6 Nf4 e6 Bb5 Rd8 Re1 Bb7 d5 Ne5 c4 Rd6 Qe2 Qe7 f3 R6d8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6 a3 Nc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6 h3 g4 hxg4 Bxg4 Re1 Qxd1 Raxd1 Rad8 Nd5 Rd7 b4 Ne7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 Be3 Ng4 Bg5 f6 Bh4 g5 Bg3 Nh6 dxe5 dxe5 O-O Nc6 h3 g4 hxg4 Bxg4 Re1 Qxd1 Raxd1 Rad8 Nd5 Rd7 b4 Ne7 Ne3 Rxd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Bc4 c5 Ne2 Nc6 Be3 O-O O-O Qc7 Rc1 b6 Nf4 e6 Bb5 Rd8 Re1 Bb7 d5 Ne5 c4 Rd6 Qe2 Qe7 f3 R6d8 Kh1 Bf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6 a3 Nc6 Ned5 Nd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb4 Ne2 h6 Bd2 Bxd2 Rxd2 Rd8 Rad1 Rxd2 Rxd2 g5 b3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be6 Rd1 Be7 Bg5 Bb4 Ne2 h6 Bd2 Bxd2 Rxd2 Rd8 Rad1 Rxd2 Rxd2 g5 b3 Ne7 h4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6 a3 Nc6 Ned5 Nd4 Bd3 Rb8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6 a3 Nc6 Ned5 Nd4 Bd3 Rb8 Be3 Re8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6 a3 Nc6 Ned5 Nd4 Bd3 Rb8 Be3 Re8 Qd2 Nxd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6 a3 Nc6 Ned5 Nd4 Bd3 Rb8 Be3 Re8 Qd2 Nxd5 Nxd5 Nf5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2232)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 e5 Nb5 d6 N1c3 a6 Na3 Be7 Nc4 b5 Ne3 Nf6 Bd3 Nb4 Be2 O-O O-O Be6 a3 Nc6 Ned5 Nd4 Bd3 Rb8 Be3 Re8 Qd2 Nxd5 Nxd5 Nf5 Nxe7 Nxe7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8 Nc5 Bc8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1 Rc8 a3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8 Nc5 Bc8 Ne1 Nb4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8 Nc5 Bc8 Ne1 Nb4 Qd2 Nd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1 Rc8 a3 Na5 Be2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1 Rc8 a3 Na5 Be2 Rxc1 Qxc1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1 Rc8 a3 Na5 Be2 Rxc1 Qxc1 Bb5 Bxb5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1 Rc8 a3 Na5 Be2 Rxc1 Qxc1 Bb5 Bxb5 axb5 b4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1 Rc8 a3 Na5 Be2 Rxc1 Qxc1 Bb5 Bxb5 axb5 b4 Nc6 Rd1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8 Nc5 Bc8 Ne1 Nb4 Qd2 Nd5 Ned3 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 d5 c4 dxc4 Nf3 Nf6 e3 e6 Bxc4 c5 O-O a6 b3 cxd4 Nxd4 Bd7 Bb2 Nc6 Nf3 Be7 Nbd2 O-O Rc1 Rc8 a3 Na5 Be2 Rxc1 Qxc1 Bb5 Bxb5 axb5 b4 Nc6 Rd1 Qa8 Bxf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8 Nc5 Bc8 Ne1 Nb4 Qd2 Nd5 Ned3 O-O Rfc1 Be7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8 Nc5 Bc8 Ne1 Nb4 Qd2 Nd5 Ned3 O-O Rfc1 Be7 a4 b4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2245)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 g3 d5 Bg2 dxc4 Nf3 a6 O-O Nc6 Bg5 Be7 e3 Bd7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd2 b5 b3 cxb3 Nxb3 Rb8 Nc5 Bc8 Ne1 Nb4 Qd2 Nd5 Ned3 O-O Rfc1 Be7 a4 b4 Bxd5 Qxd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 Nc3 dxe4 Nxe4 Bf5 Ng3 Bg6 h4 h6 Nf3 Nd7 h5 Bh7 Bd3 Bxd3 Qxd3 e6 Bd2 Ngf6 O-O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7 Rfd1 a5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7 Rfd1 a5 Rac1 Rad8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3 g6 Qe2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3 g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3 g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4 O-O Nd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3 g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4 O-O Nd2 f6 exf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3 g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4 O-O Nd2 f6 exf6 Qxf6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 e5 Ne2 Bc5 Nbc3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5 Na5 Ne3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7 Rfd1 a5 Rac1 Rad8 Nb1 Bxd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5 Na5 Ne3 Bg5 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5 Na5 Ne3 Bg5 O-O Nb7 Bc2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7 Rfd1 a5 Rac1 Rad8 Nb1 Bxd2 Nxd2 Qc7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 c3 Bg7 Qh5 O-O
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5 Na5 Ne3 Bg5 O-O Nb7 Bc2 d6 Ba4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 e5 Ne2 Bc5 Nbc3 Nf6 d4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 c3 Bg7 Qh5 O-O exf5 Bxd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5 Na5 Ne3 Bg5 O-O Nb7 Bc2 d6 Ba4 Bd7 Bxd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 e5 Ne2 Bc5 Nbc3 Nf6 d4 exd4 Nxd4
Transpose to wikichess #51159#
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5 Na5 Ne3 Bg5 O-O Nb7 Bc2 d6 Ba4 Bd7 Bxd7 Qxd7 h3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 c3 Bg7 Qh5 O-O exf5 Bxd5 f6 e4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4 e3 b6 Nge2 Ne4 f3 Nxc3 bxc3 Be7 e4 Nc6 Ng3 h5 Bd3 h4 Nf1 e5 d5 Na5 Ne3 Bg5 O-O Nb7 Bc2 d6 Ba4 Bd7 Bxd7 Qxd7 h3 Nc5 Qe2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7 Rfd1 a5 Rac1 Rad8 Nb1 Bxd2 Nxd2 Qc7 Nf3 Nb6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 c3 Bg7 Qh5 O-O exf5 Bxd5 f6 e4 fxg7 Re8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 c3 Bg7 Qh5 O-O exf5 Bxd5 f6 e4 fxg7 Re8 Be2 Re5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 c3 Bg7 Qh5 O-O exf5 Bxd5 f6 e4 fxg7 Re8 Be2 Re5 Qh6 Rg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 e5 Ndb5 d6 Bg5 a6 Na3 b5 Bxf6 gxf6 Nd5 f5 Bd3 Be6 c3 Bg7 Qh5 O-O exf5 Bxd5 f6 e4 fxg7 Re8 Be2 Re5 Qh6 Rg5 O-O Ne5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7 Rfd1 a5 Rac1 Rad8 Nb1 Bxd2 Nxd2 Qc7 Nf3 Nb6 Be2 Nbd5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
d4 d5 c4 c6 Nf3 Nf6 Nc3 dxc4 a4 Bf5 e3 e6 Bxc4 Bb4 O-O O-O Nh4 Bg6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qb3 Qb6 Bd2 Nbd7 Rfd1 a5 Rac1 Rad8 Nb1 Bxd2 Nxd2 Qc7 Nf3 Nb6 Be2 Nbd5 Ne5 Nb4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3 g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4 O-O Nd2 f6 exf6 Qxf6 Nf3 Rae8 Kh1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2283)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 Bf5 Nf3 e6 Be2 c5 c3 Nc6 O-O cxd4 Nxd4 Nge7 Nxf5 Nxf5 Bd3 g6 Qe2 Bg7 f4 O-O Nd2 f6 exf6 Qxf6 Nf3 Rae8 Kh1 a6 Bd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 c6 f3 Nbd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 c6 f3 Nbd7 g4 b5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 c6 f3 Nbd7 g4 b5 h4 h6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5 c5 h5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 c6 f3 Nbd7 g4 b5 h4 h6 Qd2 Nb6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 d6 d4 Nf6 Nc3 g6 Be3 c6 f3 Nbd7 g4 b5 h4 h6 Qd2 Nb6 h5 g5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5 c5 h5 cxd6 cxd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4 Re8 Nf1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4 Re8 Nf1 Na5 Bc2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3 Be6 Rad1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5 c5 h5 cxd6 cxd6 a4 Ng6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Patrick Satonnet (1833)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 exf5 e4 Ne5 Nf6 Be2 d6 Bh5 Ke7 Nf7 Qe8
============
Contributors : Patrick Satonnet
For me,better to avoid queen exchange in the line Nxh8 Qxh5 Qxh5 Nxh5 g4 Nf6 with unclar avantage for white.
The plan is development, with 4 options : d3, d4, Nc3 and oo.
The real decision is the choice bitween d3 and d4, and eventually the exact momment for the 2 other moves.
If other moves aren't winning in line, oo is better move, no waste of time and no irreversible decision..
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3 Be6 Rad1 Rd8 b3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5 c5 h5 cxd6 cxd6 a4 Ng6 a5 Rf7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5 c5 h5 cxd6 cxd6 a4 Ng6 a5 Rf7 Nb5 a6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5 c5 h5 cxd6 cxd6 a4 Ng6 a5 Rf7 Nb5 a6 Nc3 Bd7
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3 Be6 Rad1 Rd8 b3 c5 Kh2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4 Re8 Nf1 Na5 Bc2 Bf6 Qd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3 Be6 Rad1 Rd8 b3 c5 Kh2 Ke7 g4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 Bg7 e4 d6 Nf3 O-O Be2 e5 O-O Nc6 d5 Ne7 Ne1 Ne8 Be3 f5 f3 f4 Bf2 g5 c5 h5 cxd6 cxd6 a4 Ng6 a5 Rf7 Nb5 a6 Nc3 Bd7 Na4 Nf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3 Be6 Rad1 Rd8 b3 c5 Kh2 Ke7 g4 Nd4 Nxd4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4 Re8 Nf1 Na5 Bc2 Bf6 Qd3 g6 N1h2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 Nf6 O-O Nxe4 d4 Nd6 Bxc6 dxc6 dxe5 Nf5 Qxd8 Kxd8 Nc3 Ke8 h3 Be7 Bg5 Bxg5 Nxg5 h6 Nf3 Be6 Rad1 Rd8 b3 c5 Kh2 Ke7 g4 Nd4 Nxd4 Rxd4 f4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4 Re8 Nf1 Na5 Bc2 Bf6 Qd3 g6 N1h2 c5 Ng4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4 Re8 Nf1 Na5 Bc2 Bf6 Qd3 g6 N1h2 c5 Ng4 cxd4 Nxf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2269)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 c3 O-O h3 Bb7 d4 Nd7 Nbd2 exd4 cxd4 Re8 Nf1 Na5 Bc2 Bf6 Qd3 g6 N1h2 c5 Ng4 cxd4 Nxf6 Qxf6 Bg5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3 Nf8 Bh2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3 Nf8 Bh2 Qg5 Kf1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 g3 c6 Nf3 Bg7 b3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3 Nf8 Bh2 Qg5 Kf1 Ng6 Nd2
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3 Nf8 Bh2 Qg5 Kf1 Ng6 Nd2 Qe7 a4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3 Nf8 Bh2 Qg5 Kf1 Ng6 Nd2 Qe7 a4 Nf6 Qb1
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3 Nf8 Bh2 Qg5 Kf1 Ng6 Nd2 Qe7 a4 Nf6 Qb1 b6 g4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 c3 Ba5 e3 O-O d4 d5 Bd3 Nbd7 Bf4 c5 Ne2 c4 Bc2 Nh5 Bd6 Re8 h3 Nf8 Bh2 Qg5 Kf1 Ng6 Nd2 Qe7 a4 Nf6 Qb1 b6 g4 Ne4 Bxe4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6 h3 Qg6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6 h3 Qg6 Ne5 Qe6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6 h3 Qg6 Ne5 Qe6 Nd3 Be4
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6 h3 Qg6 Ne5 Qe6 Nd3 Be4 Qe2 Qg6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6 h3 Qg6 Ne5 Qe6 Nd3 Be4 Qe2 Qg6 f3 Bxd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6 h3 Qg6 Ne5 Qe6 Nd3 Be4 Qe2 Qg6 f3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Qxd3
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Paul Larwinski (2266)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 Bb5 Bb4 O-O O-O Bxc6 dxc6 Nxe5 Re8 Nd3 Bxc3 dxc3 Nxe4 Bf4 Bf5 Re1 Nd6 Qf3 Qf6 h3 Qg6 Ne5 Qe6 Nd3 Be4 Qe2 Qg6 f3 Bxd3 Qxd3 Qxd3 cxd3 f6
============
Contributors : Paul Larwinski
Ilmars Cirulis (2168)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Bc4 fxe4 Nxe5 d5 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 hxg6 Qxh8 Kf7 Qd4 Nf6 Be2 Nc6 Qe3 d4 Qg5 d3 cxd3 exd3 Bd1 Nd4
Black has good chances of drawing. 3.Bc4, probably, isn't going to work against Latvian gambit.
============
Contributors : Ilmars Cirulis
FICGS : win , Wikipedia : win , Dmoz : win , Google : win , Yahoo : win
Chess is above all, a fight ! (Emanuel Lasker)
When you see a good move, look for a better one. (Emanuel Lasker)
Weak points or holes in the opponent's position must be occupied by pieces not Pawns. (Siegbert Tarrasch)
Back to FICGS , Wikichess