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 0 results for Chan Guille in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Wei Nick in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Pec in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Gary in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Arthur in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Sony in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Bradley in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Te in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Lexaz in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Gilbert in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chan Go Go in the games.
Here are 18 results for Chan Turtle in the games.
Game_114375 Game_114374 Game_114373 Game_114372 Game_114371 Game_114370 Game_114194 Game_114193 Game_114191 Game_114188 Game_114184 Game_114179 Game_107464 Game_107463 Game_107462 Game_107458 Game_107454 Game_107449
Here are 0 results for Chan David in the games.
Here are 6 results for Chan Duong in the games.
Game_121069 Game_121068 Game_121067 Game_121066 Game_121065 Game_121059
Here are 6 results for Chan Cristian in the games.
Game_135760 Game_135759 Game_135757 Game_135754 Game_135750 Game_135745
There are at least 100 results for Chan in the forum.
George Jempty (2026-06-06 20:57:59)
Next thematic tournament
we all have suggested great options there are 3 people (including me) in the 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2 tourney right now, let's fill that section up and ask Thib to change the opening line.
George Jempty (2026-05-28 12:40:02)
Next thematic tournament
Glad somebody else likes the idea of 1.b4 c6, but Thib needs to change the line for the thematic tournaments right after a section fills up. Another line I'd like to suggest is the Schallop defense in the KGA: 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 Nf6
George Jempty (2026-05-28 12:36:54)
Berlin Defense
I used to play the Deferred Schliemann. I used to steer for a line in which the analog without 3...a6 had been played as Black by Lasker, a line involving ...Bd6. I tried it in a US Correspondence championship qualifying round in the 90s but didn't play accurately at all in the opening after that, this was a no-engines tournament (well it was the 90s anyway). But the game score made it's way into chessbase, and a Norwegian IM drew GM Sax with the line in 2005. So I was influencing theory way before the centaur/correspondence era ;) Also, in any case, I've been drawn to ...f5 lines for quite a while, I used to play the Latvian when I was a teenager, but now I've settled on the Modern Steinitz, with it's possibility for the Siesta, but I think overall is more sound than other lines involving ...f5, but still with plenty of winning chances; e.g. the Noah's Ark trap. As Black I play for a win, as White I try not to lose LOL
George Jempty (2026-05-27 22:26:57)
Berlin Defense
As it turns out, the Siesta is just as drawish as the Berlin (Capablanca knew it was sound all along), but WAY more fun, especially OTB, with winning chances for both sides, but I like Black
George Jempty (2026-04-15 14:15:22)
Too many groups for tourneys
PLEASE. CHANGE. THE. RATING. BANDS.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS
The long answer:
FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:
1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.
2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.
3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).
4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.
5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.
Have good games & take care!
Garvin Gray (2026-02-22 07:45:14)
Is rating just a number on this site?
There are two types of tickets.
The first kind is when you win a lower class/rapid event and that qualifies you to enter the next higher rated event, but you have to wait until five players above the rating cut off have already entered.
This system was introduced to get tournaments started as each tournament would sit for months waiting for seven players who had ratings above the rating cut off to enter.
And then Thibault has extended the system to pay to enter, where you need to be 50 points lower than the rating cut off.
As has been said previously, one of the biggest issues is not either of these concepts, it is the difference in the rating bands for entering a tournament.
When a tournament is 2200 to 2600, no one who is rated 2500 is going to enter that event when 4 players who are rated between 2200 and 2300 have already entered.
I have already proposed a solution to this, but once again Thibault will not embrace change and we are stuck with what we have.
And I am going to say this directly. Those who are playing on here are growing increasing frustrated and how it is being run.
From TER, to rating bands, to tickets and many other issues, nothing changes.
And I think quite a few of us are reaching the point of walking away. I certainly am.
There is no point continuing on when the site owner will not change anything anymore. The only option left is to leave.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-13 02:36:18)
Is rating just a number on this site?
I am taking this comment from the chat to this forum for further discussion.
In my opinion, this statement is false. On this site, your rating is not just a number. Your rating dictates which tournaments you can enter and most importantly, when you enter a class/rapid group tournament, or a wch tournament, your rating dictates your chances of success.
Example: If you have made it through to the round robin final and you are the seventh seed, this means generally there is about 50 rating points between the top seed and the bottom seed.
But with TER being used as the first tie break, if you are the bottom seed, you have to win the group outright. Any ties and you are done. And so forth if you are the sixth player by rating for anyone higher.
The top seed in that group, who could only be the top seed by 1 or 2 points, in effect gets draw odds against the field. That is such an enormous advantage that it can not be understated how much of an advantage it is.
I think it is now so clear that your rating on this site is not just a number. It dictates everything about your playing experience. From which tournaments you can enter, to how you progress in the wch cycle and if you can get tickets to higher level tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-31 22:56:08)
Poker ELO
Hello Yeturu & very sorry, for some reason I completely overlooked that post.
Of course I agree that ELO is not ideal for poker, I quickly changed some parameters to make it a bit more stable.
There are many many ways to do it different & probably better, particularly when not only H2H is played, but the idea was to do it looking like chess, so this is just a choice among many others.
Reaching elo 2000 with constant all-in does not shock me much as players under this rating probably do not play as many as hands (it takes time & many games to gain points)...
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-29 02:03:26)
Too many groups for tourneys
... but well, I'm not completely opposed to such a change for a try, even if I think that problems come from elsewhere.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-29 02:00:04)
Too many groups for tourneys
Changing rating bands is not a big effort (at all), but it would ruin coherence of each category... and we should change it again if the number of players evolve again. That's quite like suddenly playing best of 2 and only 1 serve at Roland Garros. Why tennis does not evolve (while it is seriously concurrenced by Padel) more? Quite the same reasons IMHO.
Well, FICGS is not Roland Garros... of course, but I already made too many mistakes that ruined coherence there and there, with not so good consequences.
Garvin Gray (2025-12-09 18:40:17)
Too many groups for tourneys
The issue is not so much with rating bands, it is difference in ratings of the groups.
400 points in the groups is ridiculous. A 2500 player is not going to be the first to join a group when they know that a 2150 can also join that same group.
But once again, just like a lot of issues on this site, I have brought these issues to Thibault attention, some changes have been made, but the main issue of what you see now still remains.
Just like the rest of the issues that have been discussed, if Thibault does not agree, discussing the issue is a waste of your time.
George Jempty (2025-11-26 12:55:16)
New Tie Break System
Thib, couldn't some sort of change be made and be instituted (and communicated) by Jan 1 2026? Because yes, based merely on highest TER, in my opinion does NOT constitute a fair system.
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-25 23:27:25)
Poker ELO
Proposal: re-examine Poker ELO
Why? ELO is a heuristic designed for full information games involving no element of chance. In that space, it has stood the test of time. For games incorporating an element of chance, such as Poker, it is not ideal. As a data point, my evidence from FICGS is that a Poker player who goes all-in on every hand converges to an ELO of slightly over 2000. My last observation is from a long time ago, and one of these players (the much better one) has abandoned this strategy since then. There are many earnest players who deserve to out-rank such a simplistic strategy but don't.
Action: This subject has been studied, and the emerging recommendation is a simple change to the heuristic for games which incorporate elements of chance.
Research: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZXdehn029SaV6a5mxsn7WAMsxYNZPGHzZHKiBbeaxrw/edit?usp=sharing
George Jempty (2025-11-20 22:23:26)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I guess I "opened a can of worms" by exercising the rule regarding the ability to enter a higher rated group. But in my case specifically, my future rating is now over 2200, so I personally believe there has been NO HARM DONE. But I intend to continue to use this rule, for instance to enter >=2300 tourneys, if/when I get to 2250, there are already five entrants, and I pay the requisite e-points. I didn't outsmart anybody, I just found the necessary rule at https://ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets. A button or some other mechanism however would be a great idea
George Jempty (2025-11-17 23:52:51)
Russian flag replaced
Exactly, that was merely "anecotal evidence" of one Ukranian happy becoming Russian. IMO and most of the non-Russian world, INVADING the Ukraine was utterly reprehensible, as is the Israel INDISPUTABLY committing genocide in the Ukraine, AND the USA sinking ships and killing people WITH NO DUE CAUSE in the Carribean. I'd happily change my flag to somewhere I'm from, does Long Island have a flag? Because I may be from the United States, but I am NOT from North America ;)
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:23:03)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Yeah, I'd just want the same chances since I'm at 2274 and would like to join tournaments a tier up, but I don't see any "pay 10 E-points to join". I could claim that I've drawn +2300 players many times and "worthy of" being with the higher ups, or whatever it takes, but the purpose would be defeated if I get to face the same people I'm facing now because the +2300 tournaments would be full of 2250+ rated players.
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:06:10)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Because the optimal defenses by black are so boring! And they don't offer any counter-play, specially against lower-rated opponents that could easily draw as white with those. In uncommon variations they have to think, and that's the only chance they slip.
There's also the aspect of overconfidence, chess engines have gotten so strong one thinks they can defend anything. That was a mistake I made last time I played a Benoni and lost, I thought I played the strongest defense, who knows if my opponent could also have defeated someone else in the same line, but it was a problem of evaluation, not depth, the engine was showing 1.0 scores for positions that were lost, and they were so complicated I couldn't keep up. Near the end my opponent wasn't even playing the moves I predicted and cut the game like a knife through butter.
But I'll always rather lose a game like that than playing the same boring defense that draws against anything but it's a snore fest, apparently I could just play moves from 300 million nodes blindly and draw anyway.
So I continue to play dubious lines and appreciate opponents that deviate from the norm to spice things up, I could easily be over 2300 at the cost of boring games, but I'll be getting there soon anyway and finally find out how people on that tier play against me, since I've never been able to join tournaments of that caliber.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-10 05:48:20)
Clarification of Rating Groups
George:
As I stated in my original post:
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
Your reply would fit if the player had won the lower division and was then trying to enter the higher division.
This is the rule I was quoting.
Your justifications about where your rating sits, or where your rating maybe in the future does not matter. Many players can show this pattern.
I certain have and have been stuck just below a rating cut off and when I have attempted to enter a higher division when there are two spots left open, I have been told no as I not won a lower division.
Therefore, this is why I am seeking a clarification from Thibault.
And it is only Thibault that I want a public answer from.
Either the rule has changed and it should be told to everyone, or an exception has been made for you, which is then clearly wrong as that is favouritism.
I have been told no in the past.
So, which is it Thibault?
Garvin Gray (2025-11-04 16:15:02)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I have just seen the chat bar exchange where George Jempty has said:
You can play up if you are within 50 points, and now I am in and my account has been debited e points.
Where has this rule come from?
On countless occasions I have enquired about being able to enter a higher division than my rating when I have just been under the rating cutoff, and been told no.
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
If it has, then it would have helped to have it publicised, but also I would spoken against the changed as it makes a mockery of any rating divisions.
If this is the case, might as well call 2200 - 2600, 2150 - 2600
Herbert Kruse (2025-11-04 11:46:24)
Banning players who forfeit too much
These Players are Not playing fair and Change results of tournaments.
I will Stop playing round Robin, If nothing can be done
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-03 09:47:54)
Finished games - Gmail problem
Hello, I used to receive email notifications for completed games, but now I can't receive notifications for completed games. I checked the FICGS preferences, and there aren't any additional changes. Am I the only one experiencing this issue?
Regards.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-24 12:22:24)
DNS failure last week
Ahaha :) Thank you very much Yeturu... I could have sent an email to everyone sooner, but I always hoped to solve the problem quickly... I was wrong, obviously.
About the DNS config (ns.ficgs.com, dns.ficgs.com), I just can't remember what I exactly did maybe 15 years ago, but the fact is that it suddenly stopped to work, and I don't know why. So I had to change it.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-21 17:27:39)
DNS failure last week
Hello everyone...
Finally FICGS is back!
Noone should have lost any game on time, I added about 7 days to all players expected to move, and 2 days to their opponents (time for new DNS to spread all over the internet)
I still have no idea why previous DNS ns.ficgs.com didn't work anymore, but well, I had to change it after having solved another (bigger) issue with the server provider.
Sorry all for the inconvenience...
Sergei Orlov (2025-08-07 17:21:03)
Изменение учетной записи
I sent an email on 08/25/2018 to info@ficgs.com There is no reaction yet. Here is the text of the letter - Good afternoon! Please change the account name - Sergey Orlov to Vladimir Orlov. Sincerely, Vladimir
P.S. I registered my son, but he has never played on the site.
Sergei Orlov (2025-07-18 22:26:46)
Изменение учетной записи
Is it possible to change the account name?
Ulises Pineda (2025-06-22 13:45:25)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Harsh words? I took that as a compliment. Getting some credit was a life changer.
I forgot to explain the joke I made when I played 62.Ba3 and said "That must be a new record"; in all our previous games I played into a position where the script was about to play a losing move you had to avoid, in this game I did it twice.
Stanislas Gounant (2025-05-18 16:51:38)
Changing in Poker game.
DOne
Thibault de Vassal (2025-05-18 01:26:50)
Changing in Poker game.
Hi Stanislas, could you send a screen capture to my email please? Many thanks!
Stanislas Gounant (2025-05-17 22:45:27)
Changing in Poker game.
I play a poker Game and now when I watch the game, I only see the countdown of the clock I can't the the name of the player and is rating. Is it a good update or a bug
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 18:24:32)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Stockfish 17 at high depth is just too good though. Your best chance to defeat me is that I make a mistake entering the move. I try to be careful, but on a long enough time scale it's inevitable. Some combination of bored and tired or a misclick, I don't know what, but human error is the most likely answer to that question.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 18:03:58)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I think there's a decent chance that the 15 million node strategy is unbeatable, but I can't say what that chance is. Maybe I overestimate it. I have spent considerable time looking for a winning line for white and I haven't been able to find one. But, I had that same opinion about the 10 million node strategy before I found evidence in my games that it loses. Specifically games in the Sicilian. I haven't found any other winning lines for white.
As for my opponents, I think mostly they enter tournaments and play their usual game. I'm just another opponent. My focus is on the experiment I'm running, but I wouldn't assume everyone else is focused on it. But if anyone cares to prove that the 15 million node strategy is beatable, exploitive play is clearly the way to go about it. This most recent game shows that even a move that fails to give white an objective advantage could still merit consideration as a possible exploit against the fixed node strategy.
Ulises Pineda (2025-02-16 20:29:13)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
In our game I tried to apply some psychology, reach a position that is lost for black where the engine gives a low evaluation so you don't take over the defense of the position until it's too late, too bad I was incapable of making the move I intended to play.
I'd like to request that if we ever play again and I am white and you are black, that we repeat the same game and you turn on the 10 million nodes script after I play the correct move, and we see what would have happened, while I ignore the winning line found against the script.
That's the only chance I have for all the hours of analysis I spent in our game to not go to waste.
Thibault de Vassal (2024-12-11 03:09:53)
New Tie Break System
Hi Garvin,
I can only say: Yes, this tie break system is good (probably better even if it remains subjective) & interesting.
But I don't think that changing this rule would be so good, it would lose in coherence & simplicity, and complexify the understanding of past tournaments... So, I'll go to the 2nd option, let's make 9+ players round-robin groups (as far as possible).
Garvin Gray (2024-12-07 04:02:25)
New Tie Break System
Currently Ficgs uses TER as its first tie break if two or more players are tied for first in a round robin group.
I have thought for a long time this is rather unfair and gives way too much advantage to the player with the highest rating in the group.
The practical effect of this rule can be thus:
7 players in a group:
The difference in ratings between the players can be less than 100 points and seeds 1 and 2 can be as little as 2 or 2 rating points.
But with using TER as the first tie break, the top seed only needs to have score the same as everyone else to advance, which with engines nowadays, can quite often mean that all games in a group are drawn.
What I propose is to change the tie break system to the following:
1) Number of wins
2) Sonneborn–Berger
3) Direct Encounter
4) TER
A second option is to stop using such small groups where possible. This would then at least increase the likelihood of a positive result in the groups as more games are played.
Thibault de Vassal (2024-10-24 00:03:34)
Conditional Moves Method
Hello Bahadir,
No, sorry, at least not before years... As I explained in previous forum posts, it won't be feasible without making very big changes that I can't do for now (many things to do for FICGS before this).
All the best, Thibault
Scott Ligon (2024-01-12 22:51:02)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
For the 6 lines I posted, those eval depths are, in order:
46, 47, 45, 46, 45, 43.
For the line with the highest eval of +0.80, the win percentage for white is given as 27.4%, so further analysis might be warranted but that's where I left it. My understanding is that Stockfish 16 changed the semantics of the numeric evaluations. An eval of +1.0 used to mean white had a one pawn advantage (in some very abstract sense), but now +1.0 is supposed to correlate with a 50% probability that white has an objectively winning position.
Garvin Gray (2023-12-02 11:01:06)
Referee Adjudication
And this is a rule that really does need changing. As soon as the 7 man tablebase position has arisen, the player should be able to claim for win or draw and as soon as the result is verified, the game is over.
Allowing the other player to continue playing when the result is clear from the tablebase position is just pointlessly delaying of the game and can lead to claims of dead man defense.
I really do not understand why Thibault sticks with this outdated policy when as soon as the 7 man position arises, the result is clear and the position should be declared as such.
Juri Eintalu (2023-11-23 23:19:53)
A Public Appeal to Chess Organisations
Now, a question has been raised about banning Israel from the Olympic Games:
"Should Israel’s Flag Be Raised at the Paris Olympics?" <be> How the IOC is penalizing Russia provides insight into how it could treat Israel at the 2024 Games.
https://www.thenation.com/article/world/israel-russia-paris-olympics/
My position has not been changed because I have not received any reasonable arguments against my views.
I am of the opinion that:
1. Russia was banned from the Paris 2024 Olympics using demagogical arguments. The real reason for the ban was, of course, that in 2022, Russia started a war against Ukraine and annexed some Ukrainian territories starting in 2014.
2. The International Olympic Committee should publicly accept that it was a mistake to politicize sports and it should annul the sanctions imposed on Russia.
3. If the International Olympic Committee does not lift the sanctions imposed on Russia, it should impose the same sanctions on Israel because Israel is very explicitly committing genocide in the Gaza Sector since 07 October 2023.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-07-27 19:06:48)
FIDE rating change proposal
Maybe you heard about this strange proposal made by a mathematician to make FIDE ratings (<2000) more coherent against some deflation...
http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-seeks-proposals-rating-changes
http://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-mathematician-proposes-changes-to-improve-rating-accuracy
I'm somewhat doubtful about this idea to change some data rather than the algorithm, what do you think?
Gregory Kohut (2023-04-01 02:15:47)
Chess & Go in TV shows
In the tv show Andromeda Captain Dylan Hunt plays Go. You can watch Andromeda on the ROkU Channel.
Juri Eintalu (2023-03-31 21:13:22)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
You are quoting me wrongly. And you are doing it intentionally.
Moreover, I was talking about whether FIDE and ICCF decisions were justified. My argument was that these decisions applied some important principles discriminatively, selectively.
Suddenly, you started to talk about whether the Russian invasion of Ukraine was justified. You also started to talk about war crimes.
Let me remind that the ICCF started a process of banning the Russian team just a few days after the Russian invasion began.Thus, your arguments about what happened months later might be pretty irrelevant.
Let me also remind you that you decided to talk ONLY about Russian war crimes in Ukraine. You dismissed the US war crimes in Afghanistan and Iraq, the war crimes committed during the Donbas civil war (both Ukraine and the separatists committed war crimes there), and, finally, you also dismissed the war crimes committed by Ukraine in the present war.
And now, before I answered to your mess, you managed to attack me personally.
My answer to your provocative questions is that if the political regime will go absolutely crazy, then I will not defend that regime against anyone. But I still hope that it will not go absolutely crazy.
Anyway, I will not discuss with you anymore, because you are systematically ignoring important relevant facts and you regularly change the context of discussion.
Thibault de Vassal (2023-03-31 16:56:17)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
Hello Juri,
Thanks for taking time to develop...
I agree that justification is the (never easy) key.
After thinking about it, I may also agree that it is possible in a certain measure to compare russians ignorance during Ukraine's war to americans ignorance during Iraq's war. A difference is that Russia's government acts like a dictator (russians are condemned as soon as they show against this war)
I do agree that US should probably be punished for some wars (at least for the the announced reasons and what actually happened - number of civil deaths, etc.), by an International Court of Justice.
On this topic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War
I quite agree that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were aggressions 'stricto sensu', but...
- I cannot agree that the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq were similar to what happens in Ukraine. The aim was probably partly oil-related but AFAIK it was not to introduce separatism, it was not to annex territories, it was not to spread a dictatorship, it was not to force people to change their culture & national identity (but yes, this may happen in Ukraine just like it happens in Russia, for the same reasons)...
- Saddam Hussein was a true & violent dictator who was probably a reason enough to move his regime, just like it is the case with talibans, IMHO.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein
It seems to me that it is very possible to justify to fight &/or to remove some dictatorships.
Russia should obviously be punished for many reasons:
- Annexion of territories (that has no nothing to do with their nazis justifications... their argument is mainly "history").
- Numerous crimes of war (that will be documented)
Finally, there are nazis quite everywhere, even in France. The question is "how many" and what do they do? The Russia's argument does not try to be subtle or precise on this matter, it just looks like "europeans turned nazi cause Europe helps Ukraine", right?
Thibault de Vassal (2023-01-02 03:18:49)
poker reflection time
The prize is the one specified in the WCH waiting list page at the time it is awarded... it never changed so far so it will be 100 epoints.
Wow, different matter but I realize I never took the time to made the change discussed before. Thanks for the reminder.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-25 17:10:39)
I did not win a game since 3 years
What does it even mean to have an advantage? Engine analysis has changed my perspective on this issue. From a human perspective, we can say that white has an advantage at the start of the game, and the statistics support this. At the highest levels of human chess white wins more often than black, but it's more often a draw. So white has a slight advantage.
From the perspective of correspondence chess with modern engines, the advantage is shown to be an illusion. It's just a draw. The engine evaluation at the start might be +0.15 or whatever, but if both sides are using an engine and there's no severe time constraint, it doesn't mean anything. By move 20 or so of a competently played correspondence game the engine analysis will have converged to 0.00 and it will stay there for the rest of the game.
In the final analysis, there's no such thing as a slight advantage. Every position is either a forced checkmate for one side or the other, or it's a draw. Even modern engines haven't pushed things that far, but they're strong enough to obliterate our human concept of an advantage.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-10-25 23:44:07)
respectful legacy
That is a very tough question, it may have many consequences in case of a rules change...
In all cases, I have no idea about Luis situation, so if anyone knows, feel free to send me a private message.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-10-09 01:55:57)
Threefold repetition
Oh ok then... Anyway there are indeed several violations of FIDE rules at FICGS. The first one (the 50 moves rule does not apply) because I found it interesting to try it & to make it different when I created the website. It is specified in the terms & conditions (if you read it).
The other ones exist probably because either I didn't care or know, either because it was technically convenient.
Consequently, I agree with you on this point but it works like this for more than 16 years now and I don't aim to change it until FICGS goes into other hands (that will probably happen one day) for many technical reasons.
About your game, you will have to play that move, just like any other player has to do in such situation. This will prove you agreeded the draw.
Patrycja Zerowska (2022-10-08 00:56:47)
Threefold repetition
Mr. Thbault de Vassal, you say that this case is treated the same way on most chess websites. This is not true. At the ICCF website, which is the standard for correspondence chess, the draw must be claimed (this in agreement with the Laws of Chess):
" ICCF:
9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, declares to the tournament director (or the server) the intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
At other websites, the rule is also correctly applied:
chess-mail.com
"8. To check the draw ( threefold repetition ; the fifty-move rule ) : Click on "Send and offer the draw". "
Gameknot:
"To declare the draw in a game due to the threefold repetition rule, please use "Declare draw" link located directly below the game board."
None of these sites violates the correct rule.
The FICGS way of handling this case involves several violations of the rules. First of all, the draw must be claimed. This rule exists for more than 100 years, and the advent of server chess hasn't changed it. Secondly, you require me to make a move, thereby taking back my claim and my intended move. Every beginner is told that it is forbidden to take back a move, a draw claim or a draw offer. Thirdly, you refuse to stop the clocks, allowing a player to lose on time by your inaction. This "inaction" constitutes interference in the course of the game by a third party, which is forbidden. Fourthly, your bot wants to automatically end the game when there is threefold repetition (or 50-move rule). Again this is forbidden by the rules! A bot can only act upon a claim, and never when there is no claim. With all these violations, we are no longer talking about chess, but about an undesirable chess variant.
It would be so easy to add a button under the chess board, where a player can make a draw claim. Why isn't this done?
You or your referee still hasn't taken action, and a whole week has passed since my claim.
I have always - since 1972 - played according to the rules and I refuse to violate the rules here and now. Therefore I won't make a move; it is forbidden.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-09-29 21:36:29)
Next thematic tournament
Change has been done:
Anti-Stonewall [Dutch: Alapin] 1.d4 f5 2.Qd3 d5 3.g4
Rodolfo d Ettorre (2022-09-27 15:28:37)
Next thematic tournament
Hi,
What is the theme of the next thematic tournament? Any change?
Garvin Gray (2022-08-22 03:43:25)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
As I have just attended the in person 2022 ICCF Congress, and only just seen this thread, I will clarify some matters.
It is correct that before the matter of the situation in Ukraine, the ICCF statutes only allowed for a Member Federation to be suspended for financial reasons, and this could only be done at Congress ie by majority vote of the Federations.
Therefore, with the situation in Ukraine, the ICCF EB set up the Online Congress and proposals were arranged to deal with that situation. All proposals were designed only to last until the 2022 Congress in Glasgow ie they would be reviewed at the 2022 Congress and the Member Federations would vote again on whether to keep any sanctions, or not.
At the Extraordinary Congress- The Member Federations decided to vote to suspend both Russia and Belarus Federations, but not the individual players.
First of all, there needed to be a vote to change the Statutes, this is what required the 2/3 vote. And the count for the 2/3's is a simple 2/3 majority- For - Against, abstains don't count.
If abstains were to count, then the term would be an absolute majority. That is not the case here. It is a simple 2/3 majority to change the Statutes.
As is pointed out, 'However, that EC was online.' Hence why the Statues proposals vote was first.
If it did not receive the 2/3 simple majority and the Member Federations did not approve the change to allowing Member Federations to be suspended for non financial reasons, then all the other proposals would be null and void, no further voting would take place on the other proposals and no action could be taken against Russia or Belarus until the 2022 in person Congress in Glasgow.
And at the 2022 Congress, this suspension of the Russian and Belarus Federations were continued until the 2023 ICCF Congress in Amsterdam.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-20 18:35:27)
poker reflection time
Well, after some thinking and the help of another player who told me about that discussion, I have to add or specify several points:
- There is a "max time per move" rule (60 days)
- There is a "max accumulated time" rule (100 days: chess, 60 days: poker)
- The "max time per move" shouldn't be less than 45 days, because of the 45 days of vacation (or we should lower this number of days too).
- The "max accumulated time" can be 30 days while we have 45 days of vacation, there is no problem with that.
Nevertheless, it can be observed that players like me, who play about 1 move per day in each game, never reach the max accumulated time and keep the same rhythm all time long, so I'm afraid it will not change the game duration (sometimes about 1000 days) for us at least. And unfortunately, tournaments follow the rhythm of the slowest players.
Anyway, I'm ok to test that change and we'll look at the result after 1 year or so...
Thibault de Vassal (2022-08-19 02:55:17)
poker reflection time
"the new rule with 30-day max accumulated time would end the game 30 days sooner" : Statistically, it is quite hard to evaluate IMO... so... maybe.
Anyway, I'll make that change within a few weeks if there is no strong argument against this.
Thibault de Vassal (2022-07-17 02:24:11)
Cancel vacations
This is not a simple matter at all actually... cause any player making any move then would provoke changes that are matter to discuss.
German Denegri (2022-07-10 21:37:29)
Cancel vacations
yeah, but im little english and didnt check, it and now i have wait 30 days, maybe in future change rules option cancel vacation be nice for all members
Regards.
Juri Eintalu (2022-07-10 19:05:13)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
It seems that Russia and Belarus have not been suspended from the international chess federation ICCF.
The ICCF Extraordinary Congress tried to suspend Russian and Belarus federations.
Online voting was carried on 27 April - 09 May 2022.
https://www.iccf.com/congresses
ICCF homepage does not provide a clear result. I do not see it. The link to THAT Congress disappeared today.
The downloadable table of the voting results does not show in detail, what country made what decision.
An excerpt from the results:
***
EC 2022-003 Suspend the Russian Federation - Void if EC 2022-001 is Defeated
For 33, Against 10, Abstain 14
(I calculate that FOR: 58%)
Amendment of ICCF Statute Article 17, EC 2022-01 required 2/3 votes. The result was:
For 34, Against 10, Abstain 13.
I calculate that FOR: 60% which is less than the required 2/3 or 67%.
***
It seems that the ICCF did not succeed to change its Statute so as to allow the suspension of Russia and Belarus based on majority voting.
Unfortunately, in my homeland, there is no information available on how our representative voted (if he voted) and based on what considerations. The national federation also has not responded to my question sent officially through the ICCF server. I also do not see any relevant news on the national federation's website.
Juri Eintalu (2022-05-09 19:58:15)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
Karjakin's Appeal was Dismissed by FIDE
Thus, Karjakin still cannot play in the candidates tournament because he publicly approved the Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Karjakin, in turn, writes (on his Telegram channel) as a response that he is proud that his grandfather was a great soldier, also, that there are Nazis in Ukraine.
He criticises Kasparov.
Kasparov demands that Russian chess players who want to play in international tournaments should publicly disapprove Russian invasion of Ukraine.
Juri Eintalu (2022-04-13 09:54:42)
ICCF Extraordinary Congress
ICCF is about to change its Statute to be able to suspend or exclude countries from the ICCF based on other reasons than financial reasons.
Then, the ICCF is about to suspend Russia and Belarus, using this fresh Amendment.
No reasons or principles are provided, the only criteria are the majority of votes.
However, if any new principles would be introduced, they would be applied backwards-looking and selectively.
https://www.iccf.com/Proposals.aspx?id=76
Juri Eintalu (2022-03-23 17:34:51)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
The Telegram channel "Chess Patriot" was established on 13 March 2022. FIDE made its complaint about Karjakin to the ethics committee earlier. Probably it was based on Karjakin's two tweets on Twitter, plus Karjakin's public letter to Putin. The complaint was made only 3 days after the Ukraine war started.
After FIDE banned Karjakin for 6 months, he has started to make a war propaganda on his Telegram channel. He asks "reasonable Ukrainians" not to fight and not to defend the Kyiv regime.
Karjakin's Twitter history is fun. After 24. February, several outstanding chess players should be banned as well by FIDE due to the nature of their replies to Karjakin's tweets.
I am sure that FIDE's ethics code did not contain any demand not to support any wars. There is even not any demand not to talk about the ongoing war during the chess competition, etc.
Moreover, this ethics code was applied right before it will be outdated. Since 1 April 2022, that code used to ban Karjakin is not valid anymore.
I am sure that this code was arbitrarily interpreted to ban Karjakin.
Juri Eintalu (2022-03-23 10:38:48)
FIDE BANS KARJAKIN
Very interesting. Karjakin has a Telegram channel "Шахматный Патриотизм" [= "Chess Patriotism"] The name of that channel is evidence that not only FIDE but also Karjakin is politicizing chess.
https://t.me/karjakinchess
Garvin Gray (2022-03-02 08:18:43)
Russian flag replaced
The situation between ficgs and National sports is very different.
With National Sports, they receive funding and are playing under the name Russia. Therefore, when that team wins, the Russian Government receives a benefit.
On here, whilst players are from Russia, we are all playing as individuals.
And as been clearly noted in a lot of news articles, most Russian people do not support the actions of the Russian Government.
I think this is case in ficgs where if a Russian player wanted to change their flag to a neutral flag, they should be given that opportunity, but it should not be forced on them.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2022-02-28 12:32:22)
FICGS support to Ukraine
About the flag issue. A united flag would be too soft. Just change everyone's flag to the Ukraine one for one day/week to show our sympathies.
Piotr Wiaderek (2022-02-28 06:24:31)
FICGS support to Ukraine
on LSS server flags of all players were changed on United Nations flag. Even russian players have this flag. Gens una Sumus. Maybe it is a good solution for these difficult times.
Juri Eintalu (2021-11-29 11:18:31)
Repeated draw offers
First, what you can do, is to make changes to the server program so that the game log or the notation of the game will show, when and who has made draw offers. Sometimes, when the game is finished, the player later wants to know, when did the opponent offer a draw.
Juri Eintalu (2021-10-30 20:30:34)
Big Chess theory?
I mean, the knight must change the colour of the square every move. It is the most essential thing about the knight in chess.
Juri Eintalu (2021-10-30 08:19:49)
Big Chess theory?
A moving knight must change the colour.
Ilmars Cirulis (2021-10-28 19:46:59)
Big Chess theory?
Context: I resigned game with five pawns given away, soon after queen exchange happened. :)
Garvin Gray (2021-09-20 03:09:17)
Chess Cup final #4
Solved the download games issue. I normally download the games from 'download my games' and right click save link as - to my desktop and then change the file name, so it ends with .pgn.
That changes the file to a pgn file. Then I copy the games across to the database.
This time, in the same location, I tried saving, all games, and it saved all games, then I filtered just my games, then I copied my games across to my database.
Garvin Gray (2021-09-20 02:31:27)
Chess Cup final #4
One issue I am running into.
I am trying to download the pgn file.
Normally I download the 'my game' file to my desktop, then change the name, so it shows .pgn at the end, and then I can copy the games across to my database.
But for this tournament, I do not seem to be able to do this at this stage.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-09-20 02:16:26)
Chess Cup final #4
The 4th FICGS chess cup just started with 28 players... that is much more than the previous ones, and too many players most probably, but it should not happen again as 5 players groups will be double round robin from now (decreasing chances to see 4 or 5 players obtaining the same score).
Good luck everyone!
Garvin Gray (2021-07-04 03:40:06)
Next Ficgs World Championship Tournament
So despite all the debates and assurances, nothing has changed for this rule. You are not changing from 'may be' to 'will be'.
As in - "Round-robin tournaments are groups of 5, 7, 9, 11 or 13 players, there will be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players."
Thibault de Vassal (2021-07-04 00:58:51)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Sharing your opinion here was never unhelpful, whatever the consequences... Thank you again for that (whatever the tone ^^), it has become too rare.
That's the fourth time I re-read your answer and I always take time to think about it, and I'm still not ready to answer it. That's probably one reason to that lack of changes, I'm that slow :)
Thibault de Vassal (2021-06-13 16:21:10)
What is the longest game of Big Chess?
Hello Herbert. Don't worry, I saw your messages but I always give players a chance to resign in this case. It will be ended soon anyway.
Garvin Gray (2021-06-13 11:22:28)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Now that my ficgs cup group has finished, I feel I can reply without feeling like I am pushing my own barrow.
When I highlighting the issue of when there is a group of 5, I was not intending it to be related to either championship.
This is because, in my view, the issue is the same, regardless of whether the group of view occurs in the WCH, the ficgs cup or a general group game.
I am aware that some people probably have read my replies as being rather strong on this topic, and in some cases, unhelpful, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of having engaged in genuine dialogue, exchanged viewpoints, debated back and forth, and gone over many topics again and again and finally after all that time, have gotten in writing and published rules that changes will be made, and then as soon as the situations come up again, the old rules are enforced again and nothing changes, then it becomes quite a bit more understandable why a negative tone and suspicion is underlaid in the discussions.
And as for why not walk away?
Had I been told that the entire format for the FICGS cup was going to be disbanded, that groups of 5 were going to be used and only single round robin was going to be used and three or four stages were going to be used, then YES, I probably would not have entered, and I would have made my feelings known as to why I was not entering.
And, I would have been looking to not enter any further World Championships as well. I have a Round Robin group coming up, as well as a Stage 2. These I will complete and do my best to advance, but if the old rules are maintained, then I will not be entering any future cycles.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-27 00:02:46)
Waiting List Expiration.
Hello Misha.
No there aren't, but sometimes I may delete & close a waiting list (or change rating range) if there's no hope to fill it.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-17 23:24:20)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Garvin, that thread (13002) was about FICGS Wch, not FICGS Cup... I added the possibility only of double round robin in Wch because I was not sure it was necessary in every stages (obviously it finds more sense in a round robin final than in stage 1), but anyway I could make it more accurate.
But indeed I just saw it was specified in FICGS Cup rules: "There will be double round-robin tournaments in case of groups of less than 7 players." ... fact is I can't remember when it was added but I guess I could have forgotten to apply it. Usually I read the rules again & again while making pairings, so I may have been negligent here. My apologies to all participants...
Thanks Garvin for pointing it out.
I'll come back on changes soon, it is a pity not to be able to gather more opinions so I'll have to make a move anyway.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-05-07 01:34:51)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
I understand your frustration Garvin, thanks for explaining your views once again and I'll try to answer each point (even if you do not answer anymore):
a) You were right on the Cup format Garvin, obviously. Probably on (many) other ideas... I just can't say.
b) I always thought & said that stable rules were important in many ways (that I explained), which is frustrating, I understand that.
c) As far as I remember, I added the possibility of double round-robin for 5-players groups after that discussion but indeed it was (probably) never used. Maybe the rule should be changed to "always double-robin for 5-players groups", that would be easy to do. A fact is that it is difficult to gather more than 3 or 4 opinions in this forum these times :/ By the way, if anyone can find this discussion where I agreeded something else than a possibility, then (my bad) I'll change it immediately.
d) I do think that a multi-stages tournament should have a pre-determined number of stages... (players should know what kind of engagement it represents) Maybe I just missed that point and a rule specifying that stage 1 groups will be built so that x to y players (no less, no more) will play round 2 could be added. Why not.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-18 22:39:47)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
With all my respect Garvin, you couldn't be more wrong on that one... To me, FICGS is everything but perfect. Actually it is so heavy (mainly because it was coded very very fast - way too fast - with the [bad] idea to make it simple and to save as much processor & memory as possible) that some changes are very difficult to make. In this way, some good ideas could be very hard to bring to life.
But these 2 changes asked in the 2 running threads would be very easy to make! So it is only a question of time (it is most often bad to make a change fastly). For now, I have no clear opinion in this discussion and we could easily add a rule that states that any stage could start as fast as possible. And in the other discussion, the 10 moves rule could disappear even if I think it wouldn't be a good idea. Or it could evolve as it has been mentioned.
Garvin Gray (2021-04-18 17:28:11)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
I do not disagree with your general sentiment, but as someone who has been on this site a long time, I have experienced a lot of negotiations and discussions like this, where the discussions end up going nowhere, or some kind of 'change' is promised , and then after a while, those format changes are walked back.
Therefore, I have become rather jaded by this entire process and I am now of the opinion that Thibault just offers these discussions in an attempt to make it look like he is entertaining differing opinions, when really he TRULY can not bring himself to make the changes that some of these discussions are asking for as he already believes that the site is perfect as it is.
So, you are then treating the forum posters like mugs if you are saying, lets discuss the topic and come up with new ideas, if you have no genuine intention of embracing any of the ideas proposed.
I have now said my last post on this matter for quite a while.
I have made it clear what I think of these forum discussions and their purpose, so there is now no further requirement for me to reply.
Garvin Gray (2021-04-18 13:26:22)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
I have come to the conclusion that there is no point in debating this topic.
The reason for deciding on this conclusion is that I believe that Thibault will always support the status quo and will not change is opinion as site owner, therefore it is a complete waste of time debating any of these topics.
I have been involved in these debates before, and even though sometimes changes are made, it takes many months of painful debate and even after that and agreements reached, those agreements are then reneged on.
Therefore, it is just a waste of time to attempt to try and change the status quo.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-08 00:27:08)
Poker Rating
Well, let's try to gather more opinions here... if players want such a change, it is possible.
Christoph Schroeder (2021-04-06 08:53:31)
Poker Rating
In OTB chess I once lost a tournament game in 10 moves, blundering a winning combination by my opponent. Was my resignation at move 10 non-sportsmanlike?
The reason for losing quickly is most probably a lack of skill or an oversight by one player. Both things happen every day and are part of the game. No reason not to rate the game.
The consequence of this rule is outright ridiculous: a player who has the chance to mate his opponent before move 10, would have to refrain from mating and intentially play weaker moves, hoping that his opponent will resign only after move 10. I think noone really wants to see games like that.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-06 01:19:10)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
Yes, of course I understand that... that's another topic though.
Wilhelm, what did you mean exactly by "But i see no chance for white"?
Tim Harding (2021-04-02 23:02:25)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
But you said yourself you are not stopping anyone cheating, so I won't be entering another of these events I think. (Also because 90% of my games with Black I win very easily against weak opponents.) It's possible for White to avoid defeat in the KG if he chooses the safest lines but Black has a wide choice of playable defences. In some of these if White wants to have a real chance to win then he also increases the prospect of losing. I had some failed experiments in these tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-04-02 22:48:22)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
Without chess engines, there is always a chance, right? :)
Wilhelm Schuett (2021-04-02 14:23:39)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
But i see no chance for white
Daniel Parmet (2020-12-12 18:01:32)
What happened to all the players?
Here I quote LSS rule:
"Dear Chessfriends,
in the past there have been many complaints about games where one player started moving slowly esp in a lost position, partially using the 30-day-per-individual-move rule to its extreme. To my opinion, this is not a good attitude of sportsmanship.
I have therefore developed a measure against this. Depending on the position, the used time of reflection and the ratings of both players, the server can detect such games with a high probability. Actually, the delay of games is already part of the LSS Rules, but was not in effect so far.
Effective 1st October, 2020, such games will now be stopped by the server and the delaying player will be suspended for 3 weeks to start new tournaments. Further penalties might be introduced, if required.
The algorithm will not be revealed to avoid misuse and it might be due to change without notice.
Best wishes
Ortwin Pätzold"
Dariusz Fraczek (2020-12-12 16:57:21)
Cannot make a move
After selecting a game I am on move, blank page is displayed (only menu bar) - no board, no game data. Games where my opponents are on move are displayed correctly and I can change game id and go to a game I am on move, but it is in read only mode. Checked on different browsers (Chrome and Opera) and different PCs. Some hours ago there was no problem.
Thibault de Vassal (2020-12-11 20:57:43)
Repeated draw offers
Well, I took some time to think (again) about this problem. Not an obvious one.
Of course, the best option seem to be to let players to tell the server (and their opponent, or not) what they want to read / receive [draw offers], whenever they want. All other solutions seem to be a part of this solution.
By the way, players could tell the server (and their opponent, or not) what they want to read / receive [private messages], whenever they want.
I must say that all choices [any change, or no change at all] seem not satisfying to me for now... It is a real and complex ethical question to me.
Thibault de Vassal (2020-12-08 15:33:13)
What happened to all the players?
Thanks for the enlightments!
1) Interesting idea, I did not think it this way but that sounds credible.
2) Too many possible reasons IMHO, first could be the lower rate benefits/investment, added to the constantly growing place of chess engines (particularly since the Rybka era) in the game and the way our lives changed all over the years (real life, social networks, Netflix & so on).
3) That's quite surprising to me but well, at least chess found a way :)
4) I did not hear about that rule yet, what's the idea?
Mirzian Schangareev (2020-11-01 12:58:16)
Garvin Gray (2020-10-03 04:51:35)
Stockfish 12, neural network
Hello Stanislas,
Thank you for your reply and assistance.
I believe I have been able to solve the issue and it was more simple than I thought.
I was thinking that my attempts to download SF12 and use the engine were being thwarted due to issue with the Neural Network.
But I re-downloaded the engine, loaded it and then changed the parameters and it now loads just fine.
I use Fritz 12 GUI, but I also have Fritz 17 GUI.
And my computer is a decent one and less than a year old, so no issues there.
Thibault de Vassal (2020-09-02 21:54:05)
Thematic tournaments?
Already two players in the waiting list for the current one... but I'll change it next time.
Wilhelm Schuett (2020-05-24 14:04:07)
Pointless To Play The Kings Gambit ?
I fear that for white playing the Kings Gambit the Kings Gambit itself could be the problem. Our King Supertournament is a place to analyse a chance for white.
Daniel Parmet (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess
I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.
First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.
Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).
On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.
On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).” Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.” Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!
Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.
The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.” My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.
There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant” rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.
Garvin Gray (2020-03-04 05:29:14)
Wch groups, less than 7 players
I have asked Thibault a long time ago about this topic, but it has occurred again.
The rules for the WCH is that if a group has less than 7 players, it may be played as a double round robin.
I think this rule should be changed to: If any groups have less than 7 players, then each of those groups will be a double round robin.
I propose this for discussion, and hopefully agreement as I think it is not helpful for the event to hold groups of 5 and only have 4 games for each player.
If one player times out a game in that group, then that result counts for 25% percent of their opponents total score, whilst the rest of the opponents have to battle against that opponent for the full point.
So, I believe with groups less than 7, double round robin should be used. This will make the winner more meaningful and also reduce the impact of any time outs.
Garvin Gray (2020-01-23 08:16:30)
Vacation suggestion
I would like to propose a change to the settings for vacation.
Currently, when you set your vacation time, it will start from the exact moment you set the vacation.
I think a better way would be to allow players to set vacation, with the starting date in the future.
For instance. A player knows they are going on a two week vacation in two days.
Under the current settings, they either have to 'eat' the two extra days, or wait until the very last moment to set their vacation.
It is a bit of a mystery to me why players can not set their vacation to start in the future?
Thibault de Vassal (2019-06-27 00:16:57)
Android App not working
The FICGS website did not change, but the apps were updated (maybe something wrong there). Do you know what browser is used by default when you open the app? A browser by Xiaomi or Chrome/Firefox?
Thibault de Vassal (2019-06-25 15:23:47)
Android App not working
Well, maybe that changing the default browser solves the problem for FICGS apps, but that's not a clean solution...
https://www.google.com/search?q=android+change+default+browser
I'm inquiring on a better way.
Thibault de Vassal (2019-06-23 11:42:16)
Tournament
Hello Leon,
All games in a tournament start at the same time, indeed you should have received an email about this. Is there any chance that it was filtered in a spam folder?
There are 100 results for Chan in wikichess.
Mirzian Schangareev (2027)
e4 c5 Nf3 a6 c4 g6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Bg7 Be3 Nc6 Nc3 Nf6 f3 d6 Be2 O-O
Transpose to wikichess #109466#
============
Contributors : Mirzian Schangareev
[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 !
|
Ortiz, Clodomiro (DOM) [member # 9683] Correspondence chess : 2438 FSM Ranked # 61 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Advanced chess : 2350 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 |  |