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) S. Ligon, 2321 M. LaDuke, 2326 1/2-1/2 See game 152178 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Here are 0 results for Chang Nicholas in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chang John in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chang Patrick in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chang Nicole in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chang Kenny in the games.
Here are 0 results for Chang Jesse in the games.
Here are 100 results for Chang Henk in the games.
Game_64567 Game_64566 Game_64565 Game_64564 Game_64563 Game_64557 Game_64355 Game_64354 Game_64353 Game_64352 Game_64351 Game_64350 Game_64091 Game_64090 Game_64089 Game_64088 Game_64087 Game_64086 Game_63669 Game_63668 Game_63667 Game_63666 Game_63661 Game_63656 Game_63639 Game_63638 Game_63637 Game_63636 Game_63635 Game_63634 Game_63555 Game_63554 Game_63553 Game_63552 Game_63551 Game_63550 Game_63525 Game_63524 Game_63521 Game_63518 Game_63389 Game_63388 Game_63387 Game_63386 Game_63385 Game_63379 Game_63328 Game_63327 Game_63326 Game_63325 Game_63320 Game_63315 Game_63108 Game_63107 Game_63104 Game_63101 Game_63097 Game_63092 Game_62891 Game_62890 Game_62889 Game_62885 Game_62881 Game_62876 Game_62148 Game_62147 Game_62145 Game_62142 Game_62138 Game_62133 Game_61817 Game_61815 Game_61813 Game_61810 Game_61806 Game_61801 Game_61766 Game_61765 Game_61762 Game_61759 Game_61755 Game_61750 Game_61680 Game_61678 Game_61676 Game_61673 Game_61669 Game_61664 Game_59141 Game_59140 Game_59139 Game_59138 Game_59137 Game_59131 Game_59097 Game_59096 Game_59095 Game_59094 Game_59093 Game_59087
Here are 6 results for Chang Akanezero in the games.
Game_128755 Game_128753 Game_128751 Game_128748 Game_128744 Game_128739
There are at least 100 results for Chang 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 (2026-04-15 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.
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 (2025-11-17 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 ;)
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
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?
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 (2022-04-13 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
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.
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 :)
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.
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.
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 (2018-11-18 23:42:18)
World Championship Groups
Hi Garvin! Yes, I remember it was an important point in our discussion about the CUP cycle (where the rule is 100% strict on this point)... Of course, I always built additional WCH groups if the distribution was very similar. Quite the same about replacements, groups were changed if the elo average was about the same. Just an opportunity for late players to get in and to complete groups if there were 2 or 3 forfeits... It cannot be completely bad, don't you think?
Paul Larwinski (2018-11-14 21:44:07)
World Championship Tie-breaks
no , there should be nothing changed , the ficgs.com chess Champion must be beaten to by new champion.
when you look at last match , they have played mostly same openings, not even taking openings chances is it
Thibault de Vassal (2018-10-31 03:04:21)
World Championship Tie-breaks
Well, the 1 day per move rule has several reasons to remain (including avoiding more forfeits/losses on time), and coherence is really important IMO. I do not agree that Eros cannot be beaten (I couldn't do it by myself though ^^), I trust Murphy's law :) I see several reasons to all these consecutive victories, Eros explained many by himself, and I don't think it's enough to change the format, by the way we now have the CUP format for all players who prefer other parameters (thanks Garvin!).
As for Twitch & other good ideas like this, truth is that there should have been many Freestyle tournaments these last years but I couldn't organize it anymore and still can't at the moment :/ But most important is that despite of computers supremacy in correspondence chess, now Go & poker holdem, I'm convinced that the best years of FICGS are to come, and it will bring more competition, new champions & good things. Let's wait & see!
Zack Stephen (2018-10-30 13:14:19)
World Championship Tie-breaks
agree with William, eros can draw these matches with his eyes closed at this point, he can easily be champion for the foreseeable future unless a format change is made.
Some other ideas for consideration: Force specific opening thematics in the final (ie each has to play black/white of a kings gambit, or other speculative openings
Don't provide the +1 day for each move. Make the games a set amount of time say 45 days for 60 moves
Make each side play BIG, random, or other variants as tie breaker until a winner is determined
Ilmars Cirulis (2018-10-22 19:32:28)
Resigning in poker
Of course, the opposing player can change this into antipoker game and do everything to lose himself instead... :D
I don't have understanding how that would work (strategies etc.), but I expect totally un-poker-like mess.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-24 00:15:43)
Some questions to H. Kruse, WCH finalist
After that the last FICGS chess WCH final match finished, the choice was made again to ask a few questions to Eros Riccio's challenger: Herbert Kruse, for the 2nd time. He kindly accepted to answer it so let's learn a bit more on our top-ranked correspondence chess player.
______________________________
Hello Herbert, you're not really a player to introduce as you're very active here and at several chess websites for years, with outstanding ratings in each one (as far as I know), you're the 1st FICGS CUP winner & several times FICGS WCH challenger, each time facing "the wall" Eros Riccio, what could you tell us about yourself particularly as a chess & correspondence chess player?
- i began late with 16 to play my first tournament game, but with 18 i already was kicked out of a night club in company with tony miles ;) (dresscode) had vlastimil hort as trainer for a short time and played in teams with gutman, michalchisin, klovans, gipslis and some other GMs. corr chess i began, because i love to find the truth and because of freestyle, where i began to build very strong computers
What kind of computers do you build? Is it all dedicated to chess?
- i have several dual xeon e5 computers with 64gb ddr3 and 16 to 20 real cores and they all play chess ;)
Once again, GM Eros Riccio managed to draw the 12 games of the match. What are your feelings on these games? How did you estimate your chances to destabilize your opponent in the openings and to create complications enough with White (or Black)?
- this time my feelings were neutral. 1% chances to win, but i hoped he would lose his concentration if i began more games with him (we played 6 other games at the same time)
Doesn't "1% chances to win (the match)" mean about 0.17% to win only one game with White, even when losing one with Black? Isn't it a bit pessimistic after all, or is it the new so called Riccio-effect? :)
- if the strongest players face each other there is no win possible, except some has a mouse slep or forgot something during human interfacing
When did you start playing correspondence chess and what changed since that time? What attracted you most in the game?
- 2004 and evaluation of the position is the key point of improvement since then. attractive was to be better than actual world class players :)
Could you tell us anything on the way you work chess and play your correspondence games? Any tip or secret? (nothing to lose to ask :))
- with black i play for fastest way to 0.00 and with white i try every promising way to make a game for a longer time complicated
Do you use several ones at the same time when analyzing a game? (still grabbing some tips)
- i only use the newest stockfish versions of brainfish and corchess because the other engines are not so good. because i have many games i decide which one gets the most cores and time and let them run in infinity mode until i am happy that can be after 1 week or more sometimes.
You're not far to rank 2nd as a poker player at FICGS, you obviously started to take on Big Chess as well. What other games do you play? Did you consider to play Go already?
- i played go against the german champion and lost so i quit :)) played backgammon money game and internet (in fibs with kit woolsey i played over 100 matches) in bridge i was best bidder in germany 1994 to 1995, but dont play much nowadays
Do you have specific goals to achieve as a player?
- 2 goals, since a long time: be ficgs world champion and win one german bridge championship
How do you imagine correspondence chess evolution within a decade? What kind of engines/computers do you expect to use and what will look like centaur chess according to you? (in other words, what part will remain to the human player in the decision?)
- i think the engines today are already unbeatable, so in 20 years the would still not lose and chess is dead since about 4 years
What did you think about Google Deepmind's Alpha Zero performance vs. Stockfish?
- it was a joke because they let a bad version of stockfish play. i would not have lost one game against az0 and maybe won 2 til 5 out of 100
Conditions of this AlphaZero vs. Stockfish match were very specific (opening books, unbalanced hardware...) What weaknesses did you detect in AlphaZero play?
- it was the lack of precision, what would let it lose against stockfish in its tuned newest version but i look from a view of a player who is used to play with deep 60 :)
It seems that computers did not completely take on Bridge yet, what do you expect within a decade?
- i have not seen bridge programms, but the game is so easy that it must be already mastered by computers
Thibault de Vassal (2018-09-08 04:05:12)
Netiquette reinforcement
Many thanks for sharing your views Garvin.
Well, this is very relevant OTB, I agree. I'm not sure of what happens if a player abuses of complaints (e.g. to gain some time), which is probably unlikely in all cases, but anyway I imagine that a correspondence chess game could continue before to decide any problem related to provocative messages or repeated draw offers at least. And, of course, it makes it much more simple (at a first sight).
Maybe let's give it a try unless you think about clear examples where it couldn't work already, then I'll make such a change if it doesn't prove to be efficient.
Garvin Gray (2018-09-08 02:29:41)
Netiquette reinforcement
I have a couple of revisions to the rules that I would like to see. Some of these do come from otb practices, but they also apply here.
In otb, when a player wants to make a claim to the arbiter, or wants to make a complaint to the arbiter about their opponent (for any reason), they stop the clock and call for the arbiter (or find the arbiter themselves in a large hall).
Then the arbiter will rule on the claim, make any decisions about the game, adjust the times on the clocks if necessary, and then start the clocks again.
So for FICGS, I think there should be a change here. When a player presses call referee, the clocks should be stopped/frozen. Currently, the clocks keep running.
This is wrong. The player has called for the arbiter, but the clocks keep running.
If the arbiter (Thibault in this case) rules that the player had no grounds to call the referee, then he can apply a time penalty and take time off the clocks of the person who stopped the clocks.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-06-30 20:22:16)
Interview with 15th chess WCH finalist
For once, as Eros & I couldn't find much more to say after all his consecutive wins, I asked Ramil Germanes these few questions around his match & correspondence chess (with what may look like a quite surprising conclusion).
_______________________
- Hello Ramil, many thanks for answering those few questions! This is a first time with the WCH finalist, as the winner (Eros again) agreeded this could be an interesting experiment for a change, so we'll probably have a quite different point of view this time! You just finished your games to score 6-6 (12 draws), Eros retaining the title again. I guess this was the first time you played such a correspondence chess match, what are your impressions on this knockout format?
Yes this is the first time I've played a world championship match although I played before in earlier editions of this world championship but not reaching the challenger level. My impression? Its great playing for the world championship but I know its nearly impossible to beat the world champion.
- Let's rewind a few months backward, would you make other choices, in openings or anything?
I don't know. Tbh, I'm not very good on chess theory and not very updated as well. So I'm just playing basic moves hoping for opportunities to come up.
- So, is Eros beatable in this final match according to you? (please give us some hope) ^^
With how quickly you can search information and the strength of chess engines nowadays, its almost impossible to beat him unless you have access to alpha zero (haha). Though maybe Herbert Kruse can pull it off.
- What can you tell us about yourself and your relation to chess & correspondence chess?
I'm just an ordinary guy from the Philipines who happens to love playing chess. But my love of computers is what brought me to correspondence chess and to ficgs.
- Do you play other games, e.g. Go, Shogi, cards games?
No I don't know how to play those games.
- Could you tell us how these 12 games went from your own point of view?
For me, the games went through their normal course. Both of us didn't made any major mistakes so all games were drawn. That's just how it went. Though there were new moves on some the games it doesn't really changes result of the older games played before.
- Would you share a few tips to play good correspondence chess in 2018, or at least to beat the best chess engines? :)
Sorry but i dont know. I will be the new world champion by now if i know, hehehe.
- You told me that your computer configuration was basically a quad-core i5 3570 / 4gb on Fritz GUI (about 10,500 kn/s) / Windows 10, and we know that many of us (Eros included) still use such configs or even dual-core, would an octa-core have brought a significant advantage to you to win this match according to you?
Oh I don't know they still have those configurations. But I've already encountered opponents in Infinity Chess with 18-22 cores configs. Anyways, an octa-core or faster cpu would definitely be going to speed up my analysis and will let me analyze more lines and variations which may improves my overall play.
Honestly, I don't have that much time these days for correspondence chess. In my match against Eros, I had only about 1 hour of analysis time before work and about another 1 hour after work. Since I already have a family and 2 kids, they have to be my priority first. And I think somebody also can relate to this. So a faster cpu would be very helpful in the match and maybe will give a better chance than a slower cpu.
- As far as I know, you love to build computers, did you use or think about using several ones at the same time for analysis?
No. I only used one computer in my match against Eros. I have 2 other computers but both are slower.
- How much time you've been playing correspondence chess & how do you feel the way the game changed over the years?
I've been playing correspondence chess since 2010 and I have observed that its easier to win games in the past when chess engines were still weaker. Because you notice some players depend only on engine moves and engines still commit mistakes and you can exploit those mistakes if you "investigate" further.
Unlike now, engines are very strong that even players who rely solely on engines moves will be very hard to beat. It lessens the gap of players that know how to "use" the engines and the ones who do not.
- Finally, what makes you love correspondence chess in 2018?
I will always love chess and correspondence chess but what makes it exciting now is the rise of the new kind of engines.
Engines like Leela chess zero that has a different approach in playing chess. Maybe more of these kind of chess engines will be seen in the future. Because of its use of monte carlo analysis and neural networks, we are starting to see moves that we have never seen before. Very aggressive attacks and moves defying opening principles can now be seen. Correspondence chess is getting exciting again!
William Taylor (2018-06-02 14:31:46)
Order games load in
Hi Thib,
Currently when we make a move in a game, another loads automatically afterwards which may or may not be of the same type. Personally I like to make moves in all of my Go games (for example), followed by all of my big chess games, rather than switching between games. What do you think about changing the algorithm which determines which game loads next to facilitate this?
Cheers,
Will
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-15 18:52:45)
Big chess castling
Hi William,
Everything is possible, as for me I always disliked the strange castling rules at chess 960 and didn't want to complexify rules for Big Chess (now also called Sweet Chess at another website, if I remember well :))
It is too late for a change on this one, but it is always possible to create new chess variants.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-01 23:01:03)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon
Let's change everything now... why not? It's a revolution! We could be pioneers & spread the word, let's replace this old sexist game for a truly fashionable game!
Thibault de Vassal (2018-04-01 15:38:56)
Poll: renaming the Queen as Dragon
Hi all,
As it may be quite sexist to have King and Queen with different importances on the chess board, what about renaming and changing the icon of the Queen for a Dragon? The PGN notation could also evolve this way, replacing Q by letter D.
This change could be done very soon, what do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-31 02:06:03)
Vallejo Pons leaves European Chess Ch.
Quite incredibly sad story for GM Francisco Vallejo Pons after having played poker for money under an old & strange spanish law...
http://www.pokernews.com/news/2018/03/chess-francisco-vallejo-pons-poker-tax-dispute-30327.htm
http://www.chess.com/news/view/hunted-by-spanish-tax-authority-vallejo-leaves-european-championship
http://www.change.org/p/spanish-tax-authority-my-aim-is-to-seek-as-many-signatures-as-possible-to-help-out-a-sportsman-in-distress
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-21 20:37:41)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
[a few posts before & after were edited or deleted]
As I just said in the game thread, that's why I always prefered the knockout format :/ Such suspicions are a cancer in round-robin championships and a pity as this was a real tough & interesting tournament (initiated by Garvin, for the memories).
Of course, this comment is not a judgement in any matter. Systems are the problem, not the problems caused by the systems.
Anyway, let's wait the end of the tournament, then I'll tell and explain my decision, that will eventually open a new debate to change the rules if necessary (I would be surprised though).
Graham Kerr (2018-03-20 04:18:16)
Monte Carlo Analysis
I first came across Monte Carlo Analysis some years ago when i bought Fritz 12, which was rebranded as Rybka 4 and packaged with said engine. Back then the analysis mode was only usable with the Rybka engines, but more recently, now that Rybka author Vasik Rajlich is writing the engines for Fritz (since F15), those engines also work in MCA mode.
I don't know what's changed between Fritz 12 and Fritz 16, but i suspect only F16, F15 and older Rybka engines will work with MCA...
Thibault de Vassal (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).
Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.
-----------------------
- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?
NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.
When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.
Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.
- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?
NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.
Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.
About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.
- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?
NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset” of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.
- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)
NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...
For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.
- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.
NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.
- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?
NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...
- How would you describe your relation to games in general?
NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"
- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?
NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.
I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.
I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.
- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?
NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).
I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.
In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.
In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...
- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?
NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha
- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)
I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...
- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)
NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha
- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.
Kym Farnik (2018-01-24 12:39:21)
Laws of Chess - new version
https://www.fide.com/component/handbook/?id=208&view=article
FIDE have news rulz effective 1/1/208.
Enjoy! Also: Here are the changes... http://rules.fide.com/images/stories/Laws_of_Chess_2018_-_approved_amendments_-_correction_highlighted_version.pdf
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-21 23:58:43)
Names updated (the accents issue)
MySQL. The thing here is not the code but the complete change of system. As I explained last year here, it is a complete mess in terms of compatibility (I did not suspect so many issues).
Garvin Gray (2018-01-16 00:52:53)
Conditional chess moves (again)
Ahh conditional moves again. Seems like once a year this topic comes up. Rinse and repeat.
For the record, yes I am in favour it. So please do not take my position as being against it.
This discussion has been held before a few times, but the site does change.
Thibault, what is this sites current capability to handle conditional moves? They would only just have to be just one line linear conditionals.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-01-13 18:31:04)
1st King Supertournament
And I agree with that too... but obviously, FICGS also needs to open itself more to no-engines players, hopefully to attract more centaur players (complex equation, Google related). Anyway, that's just one tournament category, things will not change for the WCH that will start in March.
Thibault de Vassal (2017-12-29 23:07:05)
FICGS Android APP beta version
Finally... finally, FICGS Android applications are here:
http://www.ficgs.com/chess-online_gbr.html
Basically, the 4 versions are quite the same: only the name & icon change.
I tested it in many ways and it looks like it works fine and display seems ok, so feel free to try it, any feedback would be much appreciated!
I will publish it in APP stores soon, let's hope it will help to attract many new players (most probably Go players & chess players without engines IMO) and bring back a few ones :)
There are 100 results for Chang 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 !
|
Marciz, Alexander (RUS) [member # 11810] Correspondence chess : 2501 FIM Ranked # 25 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Advanced chess : 2332 Bestlogik - 2360. LSS - 2445.chess-land.com/ -1805.  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 |  |