Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Here are 8 results for Anderson John in the games.
Game_1798 Game_1797 Game_1796 Game_1795 Game_1794 Game_1793 Game_1792 Game_1791
Here are 0 results for Anderson Darren in the games.
Here are 0 results for Anderson Ethan in the games.
Here are 26 results for Anderson Lawrence in the games.
Game_29637 Game_29636 Game_29635 Game_29631 Game_29627 Game_29622 Game_29588 Game_29587 Game_29586 Game_29585 Game_29584 Game_29578 Game_29572 Game_29565 Game_29349 Game_29348 Game_29347 Game_29346 Game_29341 Game_29336 Game_29014 Game_29013 Game_29010 Game_29007 Game_29003 Game_28998
Here are 6 results for Anderson Paul in the games.
Game_31770 Game_31769 Game_31766 Game_31763 Game_31759 Game_31754
Here are 0 results for Anderson Douglas in the games.
Here are 0 results for Anderson William in the games.
Here are 100 results for Anderson Peter W. in the games.
Game_95516 Game_95515 Game_95514 Game_95513 Game_95512 Game_95511 Game_95510 Game_95509 Game_95508 Game_95507 Game_95506 Game_95505 Game_93730 Game_93729 Game_93728 Game_93727 Game_93726 Game_93725 Game_93724 Game_93723 Game_87363 Game_87362 Game_87361 Game_87360 Game_87359 Game_87358 Game_87357 Game_87356 Game_87347 Game_87346 Game_87345 Game_87344 Game_87343 Game_87342 Game_87341 Game_87340 Game_87339 Game_87338 Game_87337 Game_87336 Game_85579 Game_85578 Game_85554 Game_85533 Game_84269 Game_84268 Game_84267 Game_84266 Game_84265 Game_84264 Game_84263 Game_84262 Game_84261 Game_84260 Game_84259 Game_84258 Game_83281 Game_83280 Game_83279 Game_83278 Game_83277 Game_83276 Game_83275 Game_83274 Game_83257 Game_83256 Game_83255 Game_83254 Game_83253 Game_83252 Game_83251 Game_83250 Game_79518 Game_79517 Game_79516 Game_79515 Game_79514 Game_79513 Game_79512 Game_79511 Game_79510 Game_79509 Game_79508 Game_79507 Game_79506 Game_79505 Game_79504 Game_79503 Game_78865 Game_78864 Game_78863 Game_78862 Game_78861 Game_78860 Game_78859 Game_78858 Game_77881 Game_77880 Game_75007 Game_75006
Here are 0 results for Anderson David in the games.
Here are 6 results for Anderson Pam in the games.
Game_106692 Game_106691 Game_106690 Game_106689 Game_106684 Game_106679
There are at least 73 results for Anderson in the forum.
George Anderson (2019-12-19 15:40:10)
Peter W. Anderson (2018-06-02 09:21:07)
Komodo 12 with AlphaZero techniques
My gut feeling is that Monte Carlo is most applicable to the opening, but I am not sure that is better than alpha-beta even there.
By the way, in my judgement Leela is already very strong in the opening. If I was still playing correspondence I would be using Leela to help prepare openings.
Peter W. Anderson (2018-06-01 18:36:45)
Komodo 12 with AlphaZero techniques
Well I am a bit sceptical Thib.
Yes it is using Monte Carlo, but it is not using a neural network which is what made AlphaZero interesting (and hopefully will eventually make Leela really special).
The Monte Carlo version of Komodo is a lot weaker than Komodo 11 at the moment and time will tell if the Monte Carlo version will ever be as strong as alpha-beta searching, but my guess is that for normal engines it will not be as strong.
As an aside, the claim of a 30 Elo improvement from version 11 to 12 of normal Komodeo may be a bit extravagent judging by the ccrl rating lists.
Peter W. Anderson (2018-05-15 11:29:42)
Leela Chess Zero
Hello everyone :)
I guess most people here will be aware of the Leela Chess Zero project.
I was interested in whether anyone here is already using Leela? I have run a few of my old FICGS games through it quickly and it gives very different evaluations to the standard engines in some positions - I am not sure if they are better or worse at a quick glance but they are different!
For those who aren't familiar with Leela it is an attempt to recreate something like Alpha Chess Zero for the PC. It is not yet as strong as Stockfish etc but is as strong as most grandmasters and some weaker engines and is gradually increasing in strength as it is trained. It comes in two versions: one to run on the CPU and one to run on a graphics card. A high end graphics card gives the best results, but it runs OK on CPUs.
Leela is nowhere near as tactically strong as the best engines (whether it ever will be on "normal" hardware is an open question). However, to my eyes, it generally exhibits pretty good positional judgement, and so I am figuring it could provide a useful alternative view for correspondence games.
You can contribute to this really interesting project by helping to train it by donating computer time. Helping with the training is pretty straightforward. A guide of how to help is at
https://github.com/glinscott/leela-chess/wiki/Getting-Started
A forum and progress chart is at
http://lczero.org/
I found getting it to run under GUI's as an analysis tool a little more fiddly as it not yet fully UCI compliant. However, I have got it to run OK under Chessbase, Shredder, and Arena OK for analysis. For running matches Arena or something like Cutechess may be best.
I would interested to know your thoughts on this.
Peter W. Anderson (2017-04-19 16:03:14)
WCh and other ramblings
To my mind big hardware only helps a little bit at FICGS speeds. Yes if you space bar everything then it might make a lot of difference but if you are prepared to work hard analysing variations properly then I think much less so - working hard is far more important than having a big computer.
For me it is more a question of how often whilst analysing those variations I can see a mis-evaluation or come up with an idea that the engines miss. It still happens but less often now than 5 years ago.
But I take your point about poker. And at faster chess speeds big comps are essential. The ideal configuration for the Infinity chess tour? - a strong human player who is experienced at advanced chess and 6 (or more) big comps running :)
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 – 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 – 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 Eros’s own statement of boredom with defending the championship. So time for a change when the current cycles are finished?
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 08:29:26)
Ultimate Challenge Tour 2017, USD 20k
Good luck Alvin - I may come and watch a few game.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-01-18 03:32:56)
GM Eros Riccio 12th WCH & chess
Finally, here is a new interview with FICGS correspondence chess champion GM Eros Riccio, who gives us his (surprising?) impressions on his latest win in the championship, his current match and correspondence chess nowadays... A good matter to think about!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__CHESS__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000012
____________
- Hi again Eros... Once more, congratulations for winning this final match in the 12th FICGS correspondence chess championship. This time, it seems that things went quite differently than in your previous matches (you scored 9 out of 12, which is a huge performance at this level), could you tell us what happened in these games?
--> Hi, yes, finally we have seen some wins after a very long series of draws. I was surprised too, I didn't risk to lose any game and I could even win one as Black... What to say, my opponent was simply not as challenging as the previous ones.
- It's a long time since you won the previous match, would you like to tell us about your other results this year, particularly at ICCF where you now rank #9 with an outstanding 2643 rating?
--> My latest final on FICGS were my only games of 2016. On ICCF I have taken some rest, the too high draw rate didn't incentive me to start new tournaments, also because drawing all games with a high rating means losing points.
- In the next final match (13th cycle), you play Peter W. Anderson for the 3rd time... so you probably know each other's opening book quite well. What do you expect for in this match?
--> Anderson is a very tough opponent, it's not a coincidence that he reached the final for the third time. I tried to win at least one game as White, but he's incredibly hard to beat. I experimented with almost anything possible against his modern defence, but I could never find a single weakness in his repertoire. I will see what to invent this time against his terrific 1...g6.
- As you probably know, another Go champion (Lee Sedol) lost a 5-games match to AlphaGo this year, while chess engines (now Stockfish 8, Houdini 5 Komodo 10...) slowly but surely continue to improve... Still waiting for the quantum computers. How do you feel things should go in the next years? Did your way of playing advanced chess or correspondence chess change these last years?
--> I have said a lot already about the very high draw rate of the recent years... I am surprised that some changes haven't been done already, like switching to chess 960, even modifying some chess rules, or at least giving 1,5 points for one win. Otherwise a lot of players will lose interest in seeing a series of all draws in the tournaments they play. I am one of those players who lost interest in correspondence chess, and even in blitz chess, engine vs engine, as we can see the extremely high draw rate situation there too.
- Finally, what can we wish for you for the next year? :)
--> Wish me to lose the match with Anderson :-) even I got bored of seeing myself there over and over in the final! That will bring some new air and that way I can take some total rest in corr. chess.
- Many thanks for your time, have a great match!
--> Welcome, and thanks.
Garvin Gray (2016-11-30 14:04:30)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Ilmars, did you actually bother to read the ICCF sections I quoted? Or did you just say, I am against any penalties as a blanket statement and stuff the rest?
If you had read the ICCF rules, in all cases of disciplinary action, an individual has a basic right to express his/her case, with reasoning, before a decision is taken by an official/tournament director or tournament office, etc.
So any player in 'question' would be given the opportunity to answer why they lost their games on time and it would be up to the Tournament Committee, or Thibault alone to decide on what action to take.
And I do not believe it is appropriate to discuss individual players when discussing this rule. If we start mentioning individual players, then the potential for a lot of hurt feelings, defamation and arguments can ensue.
People will just start going through everyone's records who might be a 'suspect'. That serves no purpose except to upset everyone.
The topic is a simple one. At least it is to me.
Peter Anderson defined the issue well.
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.
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
Jan Ohlin (2016-08-13 07:50:52)
Chess World CHAMPIONSHIP
So far, yes! ;-) I look at all games and also follow Anderson - Strömberg, a match very interesting from an advanced chess view. The strongest computer win against best player, when will that scenario begin to happen...?
Peter W. Anderson (2015-10-16 10:17:47)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I will comment more on the suggestions in this thread when my current match against Eros is finished.
However, I would like to respond now to Thib's request for views on Garvin's suggestion of moving to a 16 game final match. I would be fine with that but equally I am fine staying with a 12 game match.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-07-11 02:18:11)
E. Riccio on his win in the 10th CC WCH
Once again, Eros kindly answered a few questions after his win in the 10th FICGS correspondence chess championship. His answer on tie break rules meets the discussion in this thread:
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=forum_read&id=11773
____________________________
- Hello Eros and congrats again for this new win in the FICGS correspondence chess championship! This time, your opponent was Peter W. Anderson and you're playing him once again in the next final match. Actually, all games finished in less than 3 months, which looks like superfast, how did it happen?
Hello once again Thibault! Yes, the match with Anderson was very quick. The reasons are that he moves very fast, and like me, I don't seem to remember that he took any day of leave.
Also, our games were not played until the very end; many draws were agreed with many pieces on the board, as soon as we thought that none of us had winning chances.
- For many players, it is quite impossible to beat you in such a 12 games match (probably because of the tie rule). After all these won matches do you start to think that the advantage is too big?
It's a fact that a very high percentage of correspondence games played at the top level ends up in a draw... (and that percentage is even higher in my case, as my strategy is to avoid taking risks) so yes, talking against my interests, I think that something in the rules should be changed.
- By the way, your opponent suggested an interesting tie rule in the forum ( Chess, Poker & Go forum - Topic 11773 ), in the context of more general new ideas for correspondence chess rules (e.g. article by GM Arno Nickel - Correspondence Chess – the draw problem ) in order to increase the interest of the game. Do you have any opinion on all this?
The idea GM Nickel launched could be interesting, even if before we can say for sure if it can be applied in serious tournaments, it needs to be tested.
If I understood correctly, having a piece more in a draw endgame, after the game is over, a little plus on the score would be given to the player who had the small advantage.
I always thought like: How unfair! That player had King and two Knights against a lone King of his opponent... still he only got a half point anyway! Or even worse, in theory, one player could have this position: King in e1, Bishop in h1 and 6 Pawns from h2 to h7. (Black King in h8) Counting the value of pieces that would be a a +9 advantage, like a Queen more, but still it would be a draw. Another crazy scenario, more common, are those blocked positions were 16 pawns block the center (or more simply any fortress position) and not rarely it happens that a color has a huge material advantage but can't break through in any way. In this last case the player with material disadvantage could have found a genial idea to reach that blocked position, should his opponent with extra pieces still be given an advantage after the game?
Another important consideration is that this rule could discourage attacking players to play gambits or make sacrifices, as if the attack fails, their efforts to try to win would be punished! This last case would even increase the draw rate.
Probably Nickel didn't talk about giving a plus after games finished with advantage but still many pieces on board, anyway those positions (except the 16 Pawns one) could very well be played on until only one piece would be left.
After these examples we can see that there are so many different ways that a position with material advantage can be reached... but it's not always fair that the player with the advantage should be given a plus after the game. As a paradox, an advantage should be given to the opponent if he smartly managed to sacrifice one or more pieces in order to reach a draw endgame which he would have lost if he didn't give away material.
- Of course, the level of chess programs is for much in it. Do you feel that high level correspondence chess and centaur chess evolved much this year, or did it reach a kind of peak?
The level of correspondence chess increases in a parallel way as computers, databases and chess programs improve. Slowly everything keeps improving. Of course, due to the more thinking time, correspondence chess will always have a higher draw percentage than blitz games played by computers.
- Finally, what can you tell us about your correspondence chess path this year, particularly at ICCF where you're currently ranked #13?
On ICCF I am fighting with the Italian Team (I am playing in second board behind the World Champion Finocchiaro) in the 9th European Team Championship.
---> https://www.iccf.com/event?id=44123
Peter W. Anderson (2015-07-09 09:35:12)
Wch Match Tie Break Rules
I have avoided commenting further on this idea because I wanted to see what other people had to say. But now I will reply to the points made.
“Giving a bonus for stalemate is almost like playing for stalemating your opponent, which is not the aim of the game and this would change the game deeply.”
As I said I am against a points bonus, but am in favour of using stalemates for tie breaks. The real question is would someone start a game aiming for stalemate as opposed to start the game trying to win? I am not sure how you would do that – either way you have to try to build up an advantage and if it gets big enough it will lead to mate and if it is not quite big enough it might lead to stalemate. Anyone who gets the choice between a win and stalemate will presumably always take the win.
The one way I think this will really affect the game is by discouraging some very deeply analysed defences that are known to drawn or close to drawn but will almost certainly lead to stalemate. Personally I think this is a good thing, but I accept that the opposite view could be taken :)
“I think you overlooking a little that a good defense leading to stalemate means showing great skill. It´s not all about luck.”
Reaching stalemate as the defending side can be very simple (e.g. king and pawn vs king) or can indeed show great skill. It is almost never down to luck. In the case where great skill is shown that skill earns you half a point instead of no points. Nonetheless, the very fact that you needed great skill to save the game shows how close you came to losing, so I see no reason not to use this as a tiebreak rule.
“And stalemating gamepoints definitely will favour stupid engine playing and not human thinking with endgame skill”.
Like Pablo, I think quite the opposite is true. In fact one of my motivations for suggesting the change was to increase the human element in the game.
“According to me, stalemating an opponent (or having King + Bishop vs. King) reflects who played better ONLY IF rules say it before the game. In some cases, it actually reflects a better play, but in some others, it only shows that the stalemated player (or naked king) found a clever way to draw the game by giving the opponent the illusion of an advantage. Isn't it quite subjective after all?”
I have some sympathy for this viewpoint. If we could play perfect chess and at the start of the game someone decided to take the draw by allowing themselves to be stalemated then that would be a very good example supporting that view. However, I think the reality is different. In most cases when someone gets stalemated (or would be stalemated if the game was played through to its conclusion) it is because they have got a worse position and have little choice if they want to save the game.
If the defending side could achieve a draw by stalemate or by other means, then under today’s rules they could choose either way. Under my proposed rules they might be wise to choose the other method, unless of course they were confident of achieving more wins in the match.
“Maybe the games become more interesting if instead give small extra score for win with black!? Encourage black to play for a better score, just as UEFA do in football.”
This might be helpful for tournaments but I don’t think it helps at all for match play. In reality, if you can win just one game in a match you will most likely win the match. Therefore you don’t need a bonus to play for a win with black in a match situation.
However, I think this point indirectly touches on an issue with match play and how hard people try to win, and I do think the stalemate tiebreak rules would help a little with this.
The problem as it stands is that the higher rated player (or the champion in the case of the tile match) knows that if all games are drawn he will win the match. The higher rated player (or champion) can therefore take a low risk approach to the match, with both black and white (actually I think the low risk approach with white is just as much a problem).
If the higher rated player (or champion) was not certain that all draws would win them the match then they would probably try harder to win. This would give a better chance of decisive games in matches.
One way of a achieving this would be through a toss of a coin if the match is tied with all draws. Personally I would not find this satisfactory.
Whilst the likelihood of stalemate is quite low, it will nonetheless be there, so this rule might encourage the higher rated player or champion to try harder for a win.
I will speak from personal experience on this matter. In most of my recent matches I have been the higher rated player. I still play some relatively risky defences as black (e.g. the modern against 1.e4) and I always try to win with white. However, I have to be honest, if I am the higher rated player, I do not always play the very sharpest lines as white and I do not often play some of my riskier defences to 1.d4. If the stalemate tiebreak rule was in place, I would be taking more chances with both white and black.
So whilst I accept that it is not perfect, I still think the stalemate tie-break rule is a good idea. However, as nobody else has spoken out in favour of it I accept that it is very unlikely to be implemented and I won’t write any more on this matter unless someone asks me a direct question. It is time to concentrate on my matches under the existing rules! :)
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..."
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.
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 (2015-06-16 18:45:50)
FICGS Chess WCh Results Summary Updated
That link is now dead as a found an error in it.
The corrected version is here....
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=AFB49FE3A5961D46&resid=afb49fe3a5961d46!404&app=WordPdf
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 (2015-06-14 17:34:57)
FICGS Chess WCh Results Summary Updated
Web address is...
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=AFB49FE3A5961D46&resid=afb49fe3a5961d46!402&app=WordPdf
Next summary update probably December.
Peter W. Anderson (2015-03-09 09:19:55)
FICGS freestyle chess superstars
Congratulations guys. A plus score for each of you :)
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!
Peter W. Anderson (2014-12-20 10:26:14)
FICGS chess WCh summary updated
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=AFB49FE3A5961D46&resid=AFB49FE3A5961D46!294&app=WordPdf
One hard fought game remaining in the 9th World Championship match. Well worth a look.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=80633
Peter W. Anderson (2014-12-08 12:33:07)
6th engine masters: A. Alcala shares 1st
Freestyle or unaided engine?
Either way congrats Alvin :)
Peter W. Anderson (2014-09-27 18:57:06)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
Thanks Stephane
Peter W. Anderson (2014-09-22 18:12:09)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
I noticed that in one of the Big Chess world champs there was a game that was 280 moves long. I was wondering if this was the longest. Does anyone know of any longer ones?
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!
Peter W. Anderson (2014-06-23 13:21:52)
FICGS WCh results summary updated
https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?cid=AFB49FE3A5961D46&resid=AFB49FE3A5961D46!238&app=WordPdf
I'll update this every six months or so.
Peter W. Anderson (2014-04-10 11:14:59)
Alvin Alcala in Freestyle Battle 2014
Yes, excellent performance by Alvin.
Anson Williams is interesting. I can't find him on any correspondence sites. I believe he is English but I cannot find any record of an English Chess Federation or FIDE rating for him. The only type of chess he seems to play is freestyle and he seems to do very well at it. He must have a lot of natural talent because there are some strong OTB and correspondence players in that tournament.
Good luck Alvin for the last round :)
Peter W. Anderson (2014-02-28 08:36:07)
Standard time control abusers
True!
There are advantages to how the FICGS world champs are organised, but one disadvantage is that you can end up playing lots of Wch games and not really have time for normal tournaments.
Peter W. Anderson (2014-02-27 16:00:46)
Standard time control abusers
But I guess that will change a lot on March 1st when next WCh cycle starts.
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.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-12-27 17:49:49)
FICGS World Chess Championship results
Dates now corrected :)
By the way Thib, when will the 13th championship start?
Peter W. Anderson (2013-12-26 22:22:27)
FICGS World Chess Championship results
Hi Thib
What I did was go into one of the 1st round group and look at the date the first game started. Prompted by your question I have checked and I can see that this is not quite right as some games started sooner - perhaps the date on the games is when the 1st move is played rather than when the game is created.
I will go through more 1st round games and make the date more accurate and update the document tomorrow (or perhaps you have an easier way or getting the dates?)
Peter W. Anderson (2013-12-26 15:47:53)
FICGS World Chess Championship results
Thanks. I put the wrong link in.
This should work OK
http://chessengines2.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/ficgs-correspondence-chess.html
Peter W. Anderson (2013-12-26 11:55:26)
FICGS World Chess Championship results
I thought it would be a good idea to have a record of the FICGS world chess championship results somewhere in an easily digested form. So I have compiled them and published them on a blog.
I have done this mainly for people who are already members here but also wrote an introduction to FICGS for those who may not be familiar with it. Who knows, it might leads to some new members :)
You can see the article here
http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=4640212584288527521#editor/target=post;postID=4543488454188377326;onPublishedMenu=allposts;onClosedMenu=allposts;postNum=0;src=postname
The link to the championship results is at the bottom. I hope someone finds it interesting. I have beeen quite careful in compiling it but I expect there may be a few small errors in it. Please let me know if there are and I will make the necessary corrections.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-11-23 18:51:28)
Don Dailey, 1956 -2013
A sad day.
I had many good chats with Don during the first season of ntcec and he was always polite and thoughtful.
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.
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 (2013-10-13 13:37:38)
Communism
And when the right leader dies or is plotted against?
The problem is that you are left with a structure that is horribly open to abuse and history has shown that the abuse happens, e.g. under Lenin is was about OK, under Stalin it was a nightmare.
The ideals behind communism are good and all the problems pointed out with capitalism in Das Kapital are fair and as valid today as when it was written. Its just that in practice communism hasn't worked and I doubt it ever will.
Nonethless, Das Kapital is an excellent read for anyone with an even vaguely open mind and does show that we need a diffrent direction than we have today in the west.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-10-10 09:58:08)
Best Freestyle Site
One thing that might help generate traffic for both freestyle and normal time limits is a Wiki entry for FICGS with a few links from other Wiki articles.
Any reason why FICGS does not have one?
Peter W. Anderson (2013-07-31 09:54:45)
Thematic tournaments?
1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.Bc4 g4 5.Bxf7+ Kxf7 is the Lolli Gambit.
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.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-04-10 09:06:37)
FICGS__CHESS__FREESTYLE_CUP__000005
Congrats to Alvin. I dropped in a few times to watch a few minutes of the games and you always seemed to have stuff under control :) Impressive against tough opposition.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-03-11 13:30:40)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?
I think this would be an excellent change.
Peter W. Anderson (2013-03-01 21:00:14)
What size groups do you prefer?
In general 7 or 9 is fine, I don't mind which.
However, there is a specific issue for SM Rapid. I entered this in September last year and we still only have 4 people on the waiting list. So 9 and possibly even 7 would seemingly be too many for this.
How about a double rounder woth 4 or 5 people for SM Rapid?
Peter W. Anderson (2013-01-25 10:00:54)
Show opponents time
Thanks Thib - much better :)
Peter W. Anderson (2013-01-24 19:57:18)
Show opponents time
It's there but almost invisible with a Grey Shade background.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-08-26 14:07:57)
money prize tournaments
Any of these as long as they are rapid speed. My preferance would be for 1 or 3.
This would be an interesting development. Would we get some of the 2400+ players playing at rapid speed I wonder?
Peter W. Anderson (2012-07-30 09:42:51)
Reset tournament waiting lists
I would prefer them not to be reset. As the rating list has been updated since entering, I could no longer rejoin the the same waiting list, and nobody seems to play in the alternative.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-07-28 09:01:10)
FICGS IS BACK !!!!!!!!!
Really good to have FICGS back. Thanks for trying so hard rather than giving up on what is a difficult problem.
Donation to follow - a small contribution towards RAID (mirroring perhaps?) or whatever it takes to make the system more resilient.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-05-12 14:34:35)
Playing poker for e-points
Yes, of course, I was being dumb. If the e-points were for prizes as opposed to pots, then I think this would probably be legal in the US.
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).
Peter W. Anderson (2012-05-03 18:28:20)
Slow tournament entries
Of course there is no perfect time limit. What is too slow for one person will be too fast for some others. The current Rapid speed seems to get the balance about right - quick enough to allow a sensible length to the tournament but slow enough to allow some real thought even if you are working or have significant family commitments.
But perhaps the acid test is how many people are prepared to play at that speed. It does not seem to put people off playing in the current WCH, so whilst it will not be everyone's favourite, it does seem to have a broad enough appeal.
In terms of format, I think large groups (say 11+ people in each group) work well and I think better serve the idea of giving people a chance to play stronger players better than a Swiss, which is fine for a game or two and then flattens out.
In summary, I think Garvin's original suggestion works well.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-25 08:59:48)
Ficgs World Cup
Either 2 stages of 20 or 3 stages of 11-13 would work for me. 20 is my personal limit for the number of games I play at once, but for this format I would make an exception and take on the group of 20 even if I had a few games running.
Like Garvin I am against banding on this, as it is against the original objective. I guess you could put a lower limit in, but I think it should be much lower than 2000. Maybe 1800 or even 1700.
One way of dealing with casual players and minimising the likelihood of drop outs is to only open the tournament up to someone who has already completed (a much better test than started) a certain number of games on FICGS. Perhaps 30 games which equates to 5 normal tournaments, (or even higher, at the risk of me not being eligible!).
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.
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.
Peter W. Anderson (2012-04-22 15:39:16)
Slow tournament entries
Let me start by saying that I really like this place. The software is reliable, the interface is clean and people are generally polite. Thank you Thibault.
I don't buy Daniel's argument about the bandings. It is quite possible to score 5 or 5.5 in a class A, and it is quite possible to move swiftly through class A.
I am trying to move through Class M. I may or may not suceed. If I don't, I won't be complaining about not being able to play stronger players, I will blame myself for not playing better.
My only concern is what happens if I do manage to reach 2300. The rapid time control suits me (I am retired) and I would not have the patience for the slower time control. As far as I can see no-one over 2300 enters rapids. So I might end up having nobody to play apart from in WCH.
There are two solutions that I can see. One is to adopt Garvin's mixed ability group suggestion; this could be in addition to the existing banded tournaments.
The other is simply to get more members, so that there are more people willing to play in a particular category. I for one will try to do my bit to recruit some people onto here.
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?
Peter W. Anderson (2011-12-15 17:16:25)
Holiday
It seems to be within the rules for people to take lots of small holidays in quick succession. At the end of the year, this can be used as extra time on the clock - work out all your replies whilst you are on vacation, wait for your holiday to finish, play your moves, and put yourself on holiday for another day or two.... and just keep doing this over and over again and your clock will go up rather than down!
I would like to suggest a rule change for the Rapid games: every time you put yourself on vacation you lose a day on your clock for all your games. It does not completely solve the problem but it helps.
It has the downside of people who really are about to go on must make sure that they have at least a day on each clock. However, in my opinion the benefit outweighs the disadvantage.
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 Cómes 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
Anderson Barradas (2010-06-15 13:56:36)
FIFA world cup 2010, predictions
I bet on Netherlands
Michel van der Kemp (2009-12-01 00:40:00)
Andersson & computers
I would think Anderson used all the help he could get, since he is a professional. So if a computer could help him achieve what he needed he would use that.
But mind you this is a maybe 5 years ago, when rybka was unknown, and computers like Fritz were the best engines. Back then humans were still (somewhat) thought to be superior I think, at least in strategical positions. So maybe he didn't use computer assistence.
Hannes Rada (2009-11-29 08:55:25)
FIDE GMs at CC
There are several examples where an OTB GM played cc and could not dominate the other (hobby) players.
i.e.
Young Austrian Fide GM Markus Ragger here at the Austrian cc team championship
http://www.iccf-webchess.com/EventCrossTable.aspx?id=18429
Further I had a draw at chessfriend against FIDE GM Daniel Fridman (Elo > 2660).
As far as I know Fide GM Ulf Anderson played at ICCF without so much success.
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 ;)
Anderson Barradas (2009-09-25 07:22:58)
My opinion
I think option 3 is the only possible. First option could make games longer than they already are, and second could lead to abuses.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-08-10 13:01:25)
Simultaneous Chess World Record
After the records by Ulf Anderson, Andrew Martin and Susan Polgar, the current Simultaneous Chess World Record has been established this year by Kiril Georgiev, who played 360 opponents at the same time, now Iranian GM Morteza Mahjoob wants to play 500 opponents to bring it at a new level.
http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=5659
Is this kind of record worth something according to you or just a nonsense?
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)
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, Erdinç 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
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-01 17:20:35)
1st FICGS chess championship started !
Hello to all.
As you may have noticed, 23 new tournaments just started :
http://www.ficgs.com/category__ficgs__chess__wch.html
4 matchs (quarter final) started in the knockout tournament
QF 1 : John Anderson (SM) - Farit Balabaev (GM)
QF 2 : Daniel Cinca - Peter Schuster (SM)
QF 3 : Gilles Hervet (SM) - Gino Figlio (IM)
QF 4 : Petr Makovsky (SM) - John Knudsen (SM)
19 tournaments (groups) started in the round-robin cycle, 17 tournaments with an elo average between 1672 and 1732 (16 tournaments of 17 are in a 32 points range), and 2 "group M" with an elo average about 2390.
All round-robin tournaments are groups of 7 players as it was the best way to make it fair.
I wish you all good games and have fun :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-19 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 !
There are 100 results for Anderson in wikichess.
Anderson Barradas (1231)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qa5 Nf3 Bf5 d3 Nf6
Transpose to wikichess #112944#
============
Contributors : Anderson Barradas
Anderson Barradas (1231)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Bc5 Be3 Nf6
Transpose to wikichess #136947#
============
Contributors : Anderson Barradas
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Simal Moreira, Leonardo (BRA) [member # 10062] Correspondence chess : 2374 Ranked # 107 in the rating list. Rating history : 2326 2361 2358 2360 2374 2374 2374 This member has no profile in the social network. |
| | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |