Chess online, correspondence chess server, Go tournaments (weiqi, baduk)

In the forum...

Money games...

Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games...

Affiliate links...

Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account...

E-Points prizes...

Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes...

Rybka 3, Fritz 12...

Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines...

Translators...

Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages...

Vacation help...

Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ?

Last referers :

GOOGLE
NIGMA
WIKIPEDIA
ALTAVISTA
CHESSZONE
ICQ
CHESSPRAGA

Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website !

Want your banner here ?

Forum

Back to forum

Håkon Anda    (2006-04-16 17:20:42)
Great

Thanks a lot to Thibault for adjusting the features on this server quickly and smooth for best performance and wishes from us players. Great work!

Daniel De Noose    (2006-05-20 17:55:10)
:-(

I'm not sure in case of equality we have to give the first place to the best rated. Because if a 1800 player and a 2300 player have the same score we can think the 1800 player makes a performance over his rating (good tournament) and the 2300 player a performance under his own rating (bad tournament). I think it's not correct to give the first position to the player making a bad tournament result and not to the player making a good tournament result. ;-)

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-05-20 18:39:06)
Equality rule

Hello Daniel.

If the 2300 player scores 5.5 at this tournament, and the 1800 player scores 5, we can imagine the 2300 player makes a bad performance as well (possibly lower than the 1800 player), so the 1800 player should win ?

There's no perfect system, only conditions, but this rule prevents from 'accidents' and grants the rating that is the best players strength indicator. I think this is a way to ensure that the best players will reach the final stages. Because this is a world championship...

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 :/

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?

Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff    (2006-06-16 13:55:54)
Statistics, ELO and performances

Hello Thibault!

"About performance, that's not quite true a 2200 player couldn't perform more than 2050 in stage"

Maybe you are right, if most of the players have an established rating. But you can see at the rating list that more than 50 percent of our ratings are provisional - most of them with 1700. The question is how many of these players are good or very good (like Daniel)?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-06-16 14:13:29)
Statistics, ELO and performances

Time and ratings will answer to that... It takes a few months for ratings to find themselves ! The same in FIDE and wher'ever...

Next rating list will be calculated on july 1st. :-)

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    (2006-07-22 18:31:31)
What future for correspondence chess ?

You may have noticed this "grave" question on the home page... :)

---------

Are draws and chess engines killing chess game, are the level and play simply standardized by Deep Fritz and Rybka... Is the extraordinary performance by Christophe Léotard at XIX th. ICCF correspondence chess world championship 'chancy', a statistical happening, or is there a place yet for human play in modern correspondence chess ?

"I really believe that Go is destined to take the place of Chess as the leading intellectual game of the Occident, just as it has reigned supreme in the Orient for some four thousand years." (Edward Lasker, international chess master)

"... {it is} something unearthly... if there are sentient beings on other planets, then they play go." (Emanuel Lasker, chess world champion)

It had been said that Chess 960 would replace Chess too. I don't think so...

Any predictions ?

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-24 13:06:31)
Anatoly Karpov, world champion...

... signing 1951 copies of the book (written by David Llada) "Karpov, el camino de una voluntad" - record of most books autographed by a celebrity.. previous holder was Bill Cullen, who signed 1848 copies of his book "Golden Apples" in april 2005.

Quite funny & great performance :) .. this chess festival in Mexico city obviously was a nice event : Simultaneous exhibition with 14,000 participants (world record), rapid chess tournament with Korchnoi, Kosteniuk, Karjakin & Hernandez...

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3446

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-10-30 08:54:15)
Re: JUDIT POLGAR

Hi Dinesh.

Seems to be a question a money ?! .. If I remember correctly, Sergey Karjakin was to play Topalov with a 1 M$ prize fund (?), so why not a Judit Polgar vs. Vladimir Kramnik match...

She (probably) only needs a good sponsor and a serious preparation to create such an interesting event... I'm sure Kramnik would play it. I don't remember Judit playing a 6+ game match, but I feel it would be hard for her, first because of Kramnik style (& Judit's).

Anyway, great performance at Essent with a 2-0 mini-match against V. Topalov and I. Sokolov !

Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-11 19:27:15)
Chess tournaments : Performances

Hello to all.

Performances are now displayed for chess tournaments in the tournament crosstable pages.. (click the picture near the tournament name)

It doesn't mean anything for the rating calculation as games taken in account depend on tournament entry ratings (TER). Informative only :)

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 :)

Richard Core    (2007-02-03 03:20:17)
Computer free chess

Hi Benjamin Aldag, I agree with you. I really don't see the reason for playing with a computers help. What have you accomplished with the help of a machine? I have no idea. When I come up with a great combo, I get the satisfaction that the answer came from me, not the machine or any other source. It is alot more fun. A lot more fun. I think most people I have played are not ussing computer help. I haven't won a tournament yet, but I think I have had a respectable performance.

Wayne Lowrance    (2007-02-15 23:05:38)
more chess engine talk.

Thibault, you miss the boat on Hydra futre expectations in my opinion. Its advantage over pc engines was dedicated hardware (no necessarily speed) and ease of making program modifications. However you perhaps neglect to consider the tremendous improvement in PC performance multiple cores, processors and et all. My thought is that the pc programs already are superior to Hydra. Correct me if I am wrong, but I seem to recall that Rybka has finished ahead of it in tournament play. As far as other programs, you did not mention Zap. You best keep an eye on this one. It is very very strong and improving. Right now it is the only engine that has a chance of catching Rybka in eng-eng matches. I think it will be number two on the computer rankings. I will try to look further into Zap for a top CC engine. we see. again, my thoughts Wayne

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-10 22:51:55)
Anand virtually ranked #1

After Morelia-Linares 2007 tournament, Viswanathan is virtually ranked #1 on the next FIDE rating list (2007, April). Great achievement :)

Quite funny to see the separated results of Morelia & Linares tournament, particularly performances for Alexander Morozevich (!)

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=3722

Elmer Valderrama    (2007-03-13 18:43:31)
Why isn't there a Chessbase forum?!

..any ideas?
The best I can think of is...they would definitely benefit from one..or maybe not -and that's why there isn't any ;)

Example, we could learn about CB freestyle tournaments impressions there, or about performance of programs, or about recommended books, DVDs, etc, oh well thanks God there are other forums ;)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-03-19 18:30:34)
Tournament performance

Perf in crosstable is the tournament performance. It is calculated exactly the same way chess ratings are calculated every 2 months. It uses your TER (tournament entry rating) and TER of your opponents.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-09 15:53:55)
Tatiana Kosintseva

Excellent performance so far by IM Tatiana Kosintseva, who leads Women's section of the 8th European Individual Championships by 6/6 ! .. In the Men's section, Volokitin, Jianu, Volkov, Moiseenko & Tkachiev lead with 5 points. Dmitry Jakovenko : 4,5 points.

Achim Mueller    (2007-04-22 18:10:20)
I still don't see the point

Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating? @Mikhail Ruzin I don't see what you mean.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-04-23 01:05:39)
Performance / Rating

Achim, you just pointed it : "Regarding the rating as a decision maker I have one questions: Who showed the better performance if two players have the same number of points at the end? The player with the higher or the player with the lower rating?" .. of course the player with the lower rating :)

Once more, the aim of these rules is to find the very best player, NOT the best 'performer' in a group, tournament, match or whatever... ICCF & IECG do it well already and I thought this system could be more exciting. Maybe there could be some improvements in the rules yet, but the idea makes sense IMO. Does it really make sense to speak of performance in correspondence chess ? .. It makes sense in OTB chess because it reflects the level of players at a particular moment. But you can play a good CC tournament and a bad one at the same time...

Best wishes, Thibault

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...

Graham Cridland    (2007-05-29 18:21:09)
M-Tel

Weird tournament. Topalov failed to impress against a weak field, when you would have expected a really strong performance. He needs to study a bit I think. Very surprised by Adams' result, that's just not acceptable to him I'm sure...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-18 05:41:30)
New update !

"Tournaments" page and waiting lists have been completely re-organized by time control ! (more coherent and clear IMO)

Also a new rating list : Active players list.

- Active players list displays players who connected during the last 2 months... Right now almost 700 of 2100 which is quite good IMO :)

- Preliminary rating list now displays players who finished at least 1 rated game, less than 9 rated games and who connected during the last 2 years. (which is much more interesting)

At last, the rating rules for advanced chess (blitz & lightning) have been improved. Now a fair performance bonus for Black, see rules :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_advanced_chess

And now, I'm going to sleep... Good night everyone :)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-21 15:21:45)
Ratings

Yes, actually I just wanted to order the first players by their future rating. Wolfgang has made a great performance these last 2 months (future rating 2544) :

http://www.ficgs.com/players/utesch_wolfgang/history.html

Salut Sacha-Alexander :) .. C'est agréable de lire du français venu d'aussi loin ! J'avais quelques notions de russe il y a longtemps mais j'ai oublié depuis :/ .. A bientôt !

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-06-25 17:48:40)
FICGS vs. IGAME.RU

Let me explain – I don’t want to have any exception rules for me! It’s a principle thing: about 35 years ago I played some few correspondence chess tournaments by postcard (naturally with my real name). After a long period of abstinence (since 1999) I played correspondence chess by Email (IECG/Playchess-Server and ICCF/ICCF-Webserver) – new transport medium but with old real name. So everybody can see my chess history: I’m standing (with my real name) to all my many bad or neutral games as same as to my some very good chess performances. I’ve always used tools (first just books and later also engines), but I’ve always played my games alone (without help by any other person). I think there are many other players with FICGS (i.e. Peter Schuster, Hannes Rada, Harry Ingersol or others more) who have done it similar like me. In contrast, if DONALD DUCK wins and has played a very good game, he likes it to say his real name, if he loses or has played poorly, he is just staying DONALD DUCK. He wouldn’t have to fear to disgrace himself, but there is a real chance for him to gleam! Sorry, but this is not my idea from a friendly match between two serious teams.

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-06-26 16:28:41)
Ratings

Fully agreed ! .. By the way, what performance could achieve Rybka (mp) in a CLASS M or CLASS A tournament. Finally, in average about 2200-2300 IMO.

Ivan Zarullin    (2007-06-28 07:09:17)
2 Garvin

Hello, Garvin, most of our players have not got fide rating since they quited active chess before acquiring the rating. Even now most tourneys in Russia are not calculated by fide. Our team is ordered by a player performance on igame. Since our players typically played a hundred of games on igame, this performance most adequately shows our correspondence chess skill.

Nick Burrows    (2007-07-15 20:29:03)
IQ vs Multple Intelligence

Are there other forms of intellingence independant of having a high IQ? Or are they simply 'skills'?
How about...
1. Linguistic intelligence involving sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence consisting of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. This entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.
3. Musical intelligence involving skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms.
4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entailing the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements.
5. Spatial intelligence involving the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas.
6. Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence.
7. Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations.

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.

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    (2007-09-24 01:04:39)
Rybka vs. Zappa

What a surprise... Zappa now leading the match 3,5-1,5

http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=2228

Even if Rybka plays without tablebases, the point is "The match will be played on two identical 8-cores computers"... So it probably means that Zappa's author Anthony Cozzie did it really well while implementing multi-processors engine. It would be interesting to know the performance of both engines compared to single processor version. Can Rybka be improved significantly this way ?! .. We'll see it soon, anyway nice to see a "real match" :)

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 ?!

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-12-18 18:33:50)
High level performance

Marius Zubac just won tournament FICGS__CHESS__WCH_STAGE_1_GROUP_M_01__000003 with an impressive 2631 performance (6.5/8 and no loss in a 2378 tournament)

On his way to victory he cruelly refuted a knight-for-three-pawns sac that I tried in our encounter. Nice job!

Congratulations for this fine performance.

... we need more high level tournaments ...

Marc

Wolfgang Utesch    (2007-12-19 08:03:06)
High level performance

This extra high performance is a result about forfeiting of the two both best rating participants of the tournament. Anyway comgratulations tu Marius Zubac!

Marc Lacrosse    (2007-12-19 12:14:58)
corrected

"This extra high performance is a result about forfeiting of the two both best rating participants of the tournament."

Right.

Still 2550 if you consider his 4.5/6 against 2357

Not that bad ...

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-19 18:08:38)
High level performance

Right, many congratulations to Marius, at least for beating Marc (who made a good tournament too) with the Black pieces !

And congrats to Dinesh for "submitting" new great quotes with an interesting Nietszche-like written style to FICGS files :)) (if you agree, of course)

Thibault de Vassal    (2007-12-22 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    (2008-01-16 19:32:31)
FICGS rules

Hello Peter, I understand your point of view. Correspondence chess is not OTB (over the board) chess and rules may not go the same way.

FICGS WCH rules can be found here :

http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=entry_tournament&tournament=ficgs_chess_wch
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#chess_wch

... so you should have seen it before to enter the waiting list.

The idea in this correspondence chess championship is to find the best player, of course. In correspondence chess, rating is much more important than in OTB chess to know the "current" level of a player, and should be taken in account, just like performance. This rule is quite hard but this way we can organize a new cycle every 6 months, so more chances to reach the final stages. Anyway this issue will be discussed again and again.. and rules are just rules.

Best wishes, Thibault

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-15 12:43:07)
Unfought draws & rating calculation

An interesting article at Chessbase.com on unfought draws (mathematical, logical and practical considerations), also called "grandmaster draw" in the article, and ways to avoid it, by mathematician and logician Kung-Ming Tiong, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4513

I notice that the main solution proposed just looks like FICGS rules for advanced chess (Performance +/- delta according to the color) :-D .. Anyway I still have to take some time to make this part of the server more attractive.

This thread may be a good place to ask for a feedback about FICGS current rating rules (for both chess & Go), what do you think ? :)

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.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-27 23:03:53)
Future rating & statistics

Hello Vjacheslav, everything's ok : Your rating first depends on your opponents ratings, obviously it will increase during next months :

http://www.ficgs.com/display_history.php?member=2290

ELO : 1867
Future rating : 1922
Games calculated : 9
Result : 77 %
Elo opponents : 1809
Performance : 2020

Rating history (from first to last) :
1600 1696 1740 1823 1867

Yugi Inving    (2008-03-29 19:09:43)
performance.

How does the performance is calculated. like me Games calculated : 7 Result : 92 % Elo opponents : 1299 Performance : 1700 from this 1700 come from, from my victories and the elo of opponent or the types of games i play.

Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-29 19:36:02)
performance calculation

Hello Yugi. All explained here :

http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html
http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#rating_chess

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

Jason Repa    (2008-05-07 01:09:36)
Step up, or shut up!

"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)"

Join the club. I started as a 1700 player also. You've lost over 25% of your games. And to weak opponents at that. So I'm quite justified in assuming that I'm a better chess player than you, and by a very wide margin also. The fact that you couldn't figure out on your own why 10...Bf5 is no improvement over 10...Qe7 is just icing on the cake.

But anyway, I've had enough of you whining about your low rating and making excuses for your poor performance in chess. Excuses are for losers.

And there was nothing "arrogant" in any of my statements. The problem here is your stupidity and incapability at understanding what has been said to you. I've already explained to you TWICE that you were wrong in assuming that there was an implication that "material is everything" when I was discussing the recovery of material. That was not said nor implied. What part of this isn't sinking into your skull? How many more times does it need to be repeated for you to be able to understand???

I don't normally give free chess lessons to insolent patzers like you, but I'd be willing to have you a few bullet games on a secure server like playchess.com where in bullet time controls you won't be able to use your chess program to do the thinking for you like you do here. I've already had this type of thing go down with another motormouth on this site. I beat him 100% of the games and posted a link to them. At least he was man enough to step up to the plate and play me. You made the challenge so don't back down with any excuses, like the excuses you used to explain your paltry 1912 rating. And obviously if we're going to play real-time chess with the assumption is that its going to be human mind vs human mind chess, it's going to have to be fast bullet games. Not standard blitz where you have time to see what rybka running on your other computer suggests. Let me know what your playchess.com account name is and when you're able to play.

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    (2008-06-09 00:22:32)
Rapid chess entry rating

If you're not bright enough to figure out how to look up someone's rating, you better stick to "engine-assisted" chess. I'd probably beat you blindfolded in chess where you have to come up with the moves using your own mind. You're not even intelligent enough to figure out how to spell someone's name, when the spelling of it is right in front of you.

And for someone who doesn't want to engage in insults, you sure are doing a good job of insulting. Nice of you to "claim" I wouldn't accept your "challenge" of playing match games, before you even make the challenge. Obviously it's YOU who's backing down from match games with me, under the pretense of not having any time to play. What sheer nonsense. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands....enough to blabber away with numerous forum posts where you whine about not being able to make it to 2300.

I'm challenging YOU to some human mind vs human mind chess on the playchess server right now. You can get a free trial account there (if you don't already have an account) in about 2 minutes. For a guy who's incessantly bickering about Rybka hurting your performance, you should love having the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this that you're not the spineless hypocrite coward I'm claiming you are and step up to the plate to play me some fast (so rybka or other engines cannot be consulted) online games.

Nice of you to tell us you have problems, but it was already obvious.

[Chess rating list] [Go ranking list] [Chess & Go links] [Chess forum] [Players blog] [Countries] [Chess openings]
[Chess encyclopedia] [Seo forums] [Directory] [Buzz] [Meet people] [Contact] [Legal informations]

Feel free to link to FICGS to get referer links or to see your Google PageRank on your website. You may also buy, sell or exchange text link ads in the Coop advertising network.

FREECHESS SPAGHETTICHESS

FICGS is also a social network including seo forums, a hot news & buzz blog, a free web directory and discussion forums to meet people from all over the world. Discuss the last events, improve your search engines optimization, submit your website, share your interests...