Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Here are 0 results for Ho Conrad in the games.
Here are 0 results for Ho Kwo-Ping in the games.
Here are 0 results for Ho Emmanuel in the games.
Here are 0 results for Ho Steven in the games.
Here are 0 results for Ho Camel in the games.
Here are 6 results for Ho Truong in the games.
Game_123651 Game_123650 Game_123649 Game_123648 Game_123643 Game_123638
There are at least 100 results for Ho in the forum.
Paul Guralivu (2026-06-06 18:16:18)
Cheating / Forfeiting
@Ulises Pineda: there is not vacation...
"they" take those vacations often, just for 24-48 h...
when they don't take those vacations, they just let the clock go close to ZERO and then take vacations for 24-48 h AND then make the move!
Plus: Mach Jiri is part of the "situation".
and I believe Koudela Arthur is part of the situation also.
guess what: in the WCH... Mach Jiri, Pechova Hana and Koudela Arthur are in the SAME group -- playing each other!
Ulises Pineda (2026-06-01 03:15:35)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Let me play devil's advocate here: It makes sense that all these players take a vacation at the same time if they're from the same family, presumably the family goes together on vacation and are expected to come back together as well.
What shouldn't be allowed is if they play each other and let the game run out of time to give the win to one of them, that's not random, but I haven't seen that happening, anyway.
George Jempty (2026-05-31 13:18:33)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Thib, you said you'd look into LAST OCTOBER. In the meantime, Paul Guralivu has provided even more evidence as outlined above. I think you have everything you need to make a decision, without me emailing you. Thanks though.
George Jempty (2026-05-28 12:45:46)
Cheating / Forfeiting
See, this is the sort of response that has led to my disillusionment with this site. These players, Pech, Pechova, Mach, etc. SHOULD BE BANNED. I have hated playing against them this several months.
George Jempty (2026-05-28 12:36:54)
Berlin Defense
I used to play the Deferred Schliemann. I used to steer for a line in which the analog without 3...a6 had been played as Black by Lasker, a line involving ...Bd6. I tried it in a US Correspondence championship qualifying round in the 90s but didn't play accurately at all in the opening after that, this was a no-engines tournament (well it was the 90s anyway). But the game score made it's way into chessbase, and a Norwegian IM drew GM Sax with the line in 2005. So I was influencing theory way before the centaur/correspondence era ;) Also, in any case, I've been drawn to ...f5 lines for quite a while, I used to play the Latvian when I was a teenager, but now I've settled on the Modern Steinitz, with it's possibility for the Siesta, but I think overall is more sound than other lines involving ...f5, but still with plenty of winning chances; e.g. the Noah's Ark trap. As Black I play for a win, as White I try not to lose LOL
Ulises Pineda (2026-05-28 09:30:16)
Berlin Defense
OTB I like the Schliemann Defense against the Spanish, after 3...f5 black is completely fine and there's no winning line for white, but there are two other things. First, you can feel it in the air, Ruy Lopez players have spent a great deal of time studying it and they want to prove their superior knowledge aiming for lines where they win if black plays a small inaccuracy, which happens often and that's why they like playing it.
You take that away which is a psychological victory.
Second, they have two options, either they play fast and will most likely abandon the advantage because white needs accurate play to keep her edge, or they will sit to think on the best continuation, but after the position settles down it's equal and you come up with a huge advantage on the clock.
My favorite line is when you have your queen on d4 and they play Nxg6 because they're used to positions where capturing back allows white's queen to capture the rook on h8, only to find out they can't do that because it's protected by the queen! So they have to play Qxg6+ but after covering or moving the king black is already better!
It's as if I saw the Spanish die before my eyes like that, even if my wins are mostly on the clock, it has forced players to avoid playing it against me, because it's easier to go into some g3 and Bb2 stuff and beat me from there than figuring out how to play against 3...f5.
My only lament is its name, it would be so cool if it was the Schliemann Gambit, or Schliemann Counter-Attack or something that gives it justice.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-05-25 14:21:01)
Call referee about game ...
Rule 11.5 says: "Finally, if players do not agree the result, please let the clock run out of time, a referee will confirm or correct the result later."
So yes, I can set the clocks fairly to fix a situation... It happened in some cases and it will happen again.
Maybe I should add such an example in the rules to reassure.
Garvin Gray (2026-05-20 05:01:42)
Call referee about game ...
Well. In the two cases mentioned above, it seems that both Herbert and I believe that there was at least a need to reply and a decision to be made.
And in our opinion, the worst decision was to 'go silent'.
If we take a similar situation in otb chess, and I imagine the same would be for go as well.
In an otb chess tournament, a player has an issue in their game, stops the clock and either raises their hand or comes over to the arbiters table to get their attention.
The arbiter would then come to the board and issue a ruling. Yes, sometimes their ruling would be to take no action, but at least the player knows that the arbiter has heard their asking for a ruling and the game proceeds.
In the two cases shown above, it seems that Herbert and I believe that we has occurred is that you have not even bothered to attend to our issue at all.
And that has left us dis-satisfied to the point where we are now having to raise it as a forum topic for everyone else to see.
Thomas Cranshoff (2026-05-18 23:27:12)
PGN
thank you all for the help
Ulises Pineda (2026-05-15 07:17:39)
PGN
Once you have downloaded the PGN double click it, you will be asked if you want to search the web or choose a program to open it, pick the later. Search for something like Notepad and select it and click OK. Once opened, you'll see some text, you can select this text and copy it, and then paste it to chess lab or another program.
A PGN is just text that contains the chess moves of the game, so, instead of doing all this, you can copy them from the page directly, some programs like Chess Openings Wizard are pedantic and will not accept that you paste the moves, for those you have to copy also the part on the top of the moves, the one that starts with "[Event ", that is, the game pages are already showing PGNs you can copy, because they're just text files with that extension, you'd only download them to access them offline or to store them in a personal game archive.
Ulises Pineda (2026-05-13 10:25:32)
Berlin Defense
What else is there to play, though? If black tries to play the Berlin and you try to avoid it, it would have been best to avoid it with the Italian. The Italian remains a landmine to this day, with Stockfish at Depth 30 showing a white advantage and Depth 40 switching to a black one, in some positions, I'd be happy to play the Italian and become black instead of being white in the Berlin!
Against lower rated opposition, the Berlin is a nightmare, it's as if they have found a way to force a draw against you, but you're supposed to try to win as Black to prove your superior playing strength.
This all makes me want to abandon 1.e4 entirely, but I haven't found a convincing line for 1.d4 (to me the Ragozin is d4's Berlin), though I have the most wins with Nf3, I think, against creative players (those that avoid mainlines for fun) 1.e4 remains the best option, they will not defend with the Berlin.
It's a thing about not playing the board, but the opponent, one that wants to win as black will not play the Berlin, and then the Ruy Lopez is the best option.
Herbert Kruse (2026-04-17 18:06:53)
Call referee about game ...
how long must i wait?
Thomas Cranshoff (2026-04-16 15:43:46)
PGN
yes,and If I do, i have it. but how to put it in a program like chess lab for example
Thomas Cranshoff (2026-04-16 13:42:19)
PGN
Not one particular, new on this site and just wondering. Thank you for answering
Thomas Cranshoff (2026-04-16 10:29:34)
PGN
I can not make a PGN of a game here, somebody can help me? thank you
Paul Guralivu (2026-04-16 10:26:37)
Cheating / Forfeiting
you should add to analysis:
Jiri Mach ... is in vacation until 2026 April 17 4:18:57
Paul Guralivu (2026-04-16 10:15:06)
Cheating / Forfeiting
"Pech/Pechova, I'm looking at you"
this might actually be true:
Stepan Pech ... is in vacation until 2026 April 17 4:20:21
Hana Pechova ... is in vacation until 2026 April 17 4:21:1
Taking vacation in the morning, 40 sec difference.
Trully, someone needs to look close at it!
Alan Ludgate (2026-04-01 05:26:40)
Post-tickets FICGS
Thanks for this post. Here are my ideas.
The problem for the 2400+ rated players is:-
most have left or stopped playing (not sure why) - so those who want to play have to reduce their activity or (probably) lose rating points. This is leading to a downward spiral.
To get more games played, how about:-
1. Award rating points as prizes.
And/or 2. Allow players to buy rating points, say 30 per year, provided they play at least say 10 games that year.
And/or 3. Players who play no games in a year to lose say 30 rating points. Players who play say 10 or more games in a year to get 30 rating points reward.
Adjust the numbers after a trial period.
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!
Thibault de Vassal (2026-02-27 15:19:43)
Post-tickets FICGS
Now 3 players in the rapid M, 2 in the rapid A... but the main point remains, it takes too long to fill waiting lists.
The short answer to "What have you done?" may be: FICGS did not evolve these last 10 years. But I'm not sure it's so simple. I'll write the long answer soon.
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.
Ulises Pineda (2026-02-21 04:35:44)
Is rating just a number on this site?
It became just a number after tickets were introduced.
I could easily have been 2400 if tickets were promoted from the beginning and I bought them whenever it was possible, even though I would have been playing at the same level.
For rating to matter you can't just let players play in the next tier, there's the strong 2400 players that got there beating others on their tiers or lower, but now there'll be 2400 players that bought tickets and drew their games of that tier, making it be just a number.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-13 02:36:18)
Is rating just a number on this site?
I am taking this comment from the chat to this forum for further discussion.
In my opinion, this statement is false. On this site, your rating is not just a number. Your rating dictates which tournaments you can enter and most importantly, when you enter a class/rapid group tournament, or a wch tournament, your rating dictates your chances of success.
Example: If you have made it through to the round robin final and you are the seventh seed, this means generally there is about 50 rating points between the top seed and the bottom seed.
But with TER being used as the first tie break, if you are the bottom seed, you have to win the group outright. Any ties and you are done. And so forth if you are the sixth player by rating for anyone higher.
The top seed in that group, who could only be the top seed by 1 or 2 points, in effect gets draw odds against the field. That is such an enormous advantage that it can not be understated how much of an advantage it is.
I think it is now so clear that your rating on this site is not just a number. It dictates everything about your playing experience. From which tournaments you can enter, to how you progress in the wch cycle and if you can get tickets to higher level tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-31 22:56:08)
Poker ELO
Hello Yeturu & very sorry, for some reason I completely overlooked that post.
Of course I agree that ELO is not ideal for poker, I quickly changed some parameters to make it a bit more stable.
There are many many ways to do it different & probably better, particularly when not only H2H is played, but the idea was to do it looking like chess, so this is just a choice among many others.
Reaching elo 2000 with constant all-in does not shock me much as players under this rating probably do not play as many as hands (it takes time & many games to gain points)...
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-29 02:00:04)
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 (2026-01-28 17:36:07)
Too many groups for tourneys
Time to wind the clock back quite a few years. What I suggested as a solution to this issue was that the rating bands for the class tourneys and the rapid tourneys should have rating bands of 200 point differences, but they be at a different cut off.
What this meant in practice is.
Class tournaments
2600 +
2599 - 2400
2399 - 2200
2199 - 2000
1999 - 1800
and so forth
And then the rapids would be
2500 +
2499 - 2300
2299 - 2100
2099 - 1900
1899 - 1700
and so forth I think after quite a bit of discussion, Thibault decided that this idea was either too much effort, or that the rating bands I was proposing was too restrictive. I think the evidence over the years has proven my conclusions more correct. Players do not enter the rating band tournaments when there is a 400 point difference. These events only get filled by players who have a ticket from a lower tourney win, or they buy their way in by being less than 50 points in. But, to beat the drum again. If Thibault is not on board, it does not happen. And at this point in time, I am more concerned with fixing the 5 player round robin WCH group issue.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-23 12:08:41)
Ghost player
Most probably he connected on Jan 18 and never disconnected since that time.
Fabio Bonoldi (2026-01-22 11:45:42)
no engines
I wanted to know if tournaments without the use of engines are still being organised. If so, how can I participate?
Thank you.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2026-01-21 10:17:50)
Ghost player
I have an opponent in a wch cycle who last connected to the server on Januari 18. But somehow his profile shows that his last move was on Januari 20. ,yesterday. I noticed this once before already against another player. Unless this is a bug, it's really shady.
George Jempty (2025-12-22 19:38:28)
Next thematic tournament
Yeah, just waiting for Thib to update the starting position, it's still open to entries for the CK/advance/...c5 variation. I hope nobody enters that one, otherwise who knows how long we'll have to wait
George Jempty (2025-12-10 21:02:50)
Too many groups for tourneys
Well then there is the implementing of those decisions as well, and I have 25 years experience as a web developer, and have offered my assistance lately, but nothing has come of it. I think the decisions themselves are however Thib's purview
Garvin Gray (2025-12-10 01:59:32)
Too many groups for tourneys
I am not being harsh on Thibault at all. I am just stating a fact in regards to these discussions. For there to be progress, the site owner has to be willing to embrace the suggestions.
Without this, the conversations are just that.
I guess I am just burnt out and scarred. Having been through too many of these same discussions over the many, many years and they all end up in the same place. The rubbish bin.
And it does not have to be this way. It is true that Thibault does run this site on his own, but he could appoint three moderators or other such people to handle these decisions.
George Jempty (2025-12-10 00:40:04)
Too many groups for tourneys
So from the sidebar there are only 30 active players rated 2306 and above. Something clearly needs to be done. My idea of one group 2300+ might work as might additonally allow 2250+ players in under certain conditions. Maybe there could also be a 2400+ for those elite players who would prefer to play other such elite plaers.
George Jempty (2025-12-04 21:54:41)
Too many groups for tourneys
Yeah I'm a little biased too. I'm probably headed to 2250+ in the next couple of cycles and therefore too might be able to get a ticket into the 2300 tourneys, though I highly doubt I'll ever reach 2300.
Scott Ligon (2025-12-04 18:31:57)
Too many groups for tourneys
I agree, though I may be biased. My rating has never been high enough to get into the 2400+ tourneys, and currently isn't high enough for 2350+, unless maybe I could get a ticket once it fills up most of the way, or however that works. Seems like there just aren't enough active players at those rating levels. Interestingly, I noticed that two of the four players currently signed up for the 2400+ Rapid have never played a game on this site.
I wonder if there were more players a long time ago when the current tournament structures were set up, so those tourneys were getting filled regularly. But over the past few years the fields have thinned.
George Jempty (2025-12-04 13:20:38)
Too many groups for tourneys
The very highest groups take forever to fill up. I think the low bound for the higher groups, rapid or standard, should be 2300.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-28 04:17:09)
New Tie Break System
Sorry, but I don't really want to participate in these discussions.
I have been through them before, even to the point of full on arguments with Thibault.
And also as National Delegate for Australia at ICCF, I have been involved in so many proposals on this topic that I have had enough of these discussions.
ICCF already has a set system and this is because it has been hashed out by all the ND's and the ICCF executive board over a number of years.
I see no point in trying to re-invent the wheel.
Talk of using different points for black wins or other criteria have also been debated in ICCF proposals and been defeated as they are unfair in the group as the player could get the win through an ETL.
And player mass resigning games without punishment is a topic that has recently been complained about on here again.
See why I don't want to discuss this topic. I have been going over these topics for almost two decades.
I am done
George Jempty (2025-11-27 20:41:31)
Maintaining the initiative s a matter of
crap i thought i was posting that to my blog
George Jempty (2025-11-26 13:19:19)
New Tie Break System
I still like my idea of using it based on performance rating FIRST, I don't see how it gives the lowest entrant an advantage if the tournament ends in a tie between all players.
But lets say two players tie, and one of them has a higher performance rating because they beat a stronger player than the other, that ALSO does not give an advantage to the lower rated player that I can see. Rather, that player must have beaten a higher rated player than the other in order to have a higher performance rating. So if the higher rated player beat a higher rated player rated player than the lower rated player did, the higher rated player would advance.
Perhaps Garvin can weigh in a little more specifically about how being lower rated gives an advantage. But, under his idea, my proposed order would be, 1) Number of wins, 2) performance rating, 3) Sonnen-berger, etc.
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-25 23:27:25)
Poker ELO
Proposal: re-examine Poker ELO
Why? ELO is a heuristic designed for full information games involving no element of chance. In that space, it has stood the test of time. For games incorporating an element of chance, such as Poker, it is not ideal. As a data point, my evidence from FICGS is that a Poker player who goes all-in on every hand converges to an ELO of slightly over 2000. My last observation is from a long time ago, and one of these players (the much better one) has abandoned this strategy since then. There are many earnest players who deserve to out-rank such a simplistic strategy but don't.
Action: This subject has been studied, and the emerging recommendation is a simple change to the heuristic for games which incorporate elements of chance.
Research: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZXdehn029SaV6a5mxsn7WAMsxYNZPGHzZHKiBbeaxrw/edit?usp=sharing
George Jempty (2025-11-20 22:23:26)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I guess I "opened a can of worms" by exercising the rule regarding the ability to enter a higher rated group. But in my case specifically, my future rating is now over 2200, so I personally believe there has been NO HARM DONE. But I intend to continue to use this rule, for instance to enter >=2300 tourneys, if/when I get to 2250, there are already five entrants, and I pay the requisite e-points. I didn't outsmart anybody, I just found the necessary rule at https://ficgs.com/membership.html#tickets. A button or some other mechanism however would be a great idea
Thibault de Vassal (2025-11-19 16:17:50)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Hi all,
Garvin & Ulises points are very good actually... I never thought about a button or something to remind that rule in the waiting lists.
I'll do it right now...
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-19 08:46:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Mr. Ulises Pineda,
Of course, you're valuable. The time you spend, your actions, and your interaction enrich both me, the players, and the site. Thank you for your efforts.
It's clear that each site has its own infrastructure and process. Yes, we play on a different site, and there can be conditional moves there. But FICGS's games also go to the Corr Database, and they're respected. We can say it's a proven platform.
You're right about the ticket issue being annoying. In that case, the paying player has a slightly greater advantage.
I agree with you in the long run, but the person who keeps the site "usable" also puts in the effort. Perhaps a different update on this rule will be forthcoming.
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-19 06:45:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I'm contributing with my moves and participation in the platform, I also don't ask for money to the site owner to see my moves or to start new games, because it goes both ways, without players like me participating, the site would die, if someone gets a very sour taste in their mouth that they stop participating, it's the beginning of the end.
The players are needed, is the site needed? We're already playing a game in another place, Ozen, I see you making conditional moves over there that you can't send here, so what's the advantage of playing over here instead of playing over there?
At the end of the day, I come here because of the players I can face here, that only play at FICGS, so it's the only way. If they happen to leave because of some circumstances, then the site becomes pointless.
FICGS is its players.
FICGS needs the players more than the players need FICGS.
Gratitude goes both ways, I don't feel appreciated because the site's owner hasn't even replied here, because I'm just another useless player and if I left someone else would come to replace me, perhaps someone that buys tickets.
If I'm not valuable, if my games and move contributions are meaningless perhaps I should stop creating new games around here, there's other places that are completely free, have more features, and don't let players pay to get in higher rated tiers.
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-18 13:32:10)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Mr. Ulises Pineda,
I read what you wrote. I understand and agree with you. However, you're missing a crucial point.
The FICGS website doesn't charge any fees for entering tournaments like the ICCF or other sites. And we know that the world is currently dominated by a capitalist system. Mr. Thibault's efforts shouldn't be discounted here. As correspondence chess players, our numbers are small, anyway.
There's a lot of effort involved, and you can contribute through e-points or donations.
At the end of the day, think about it this way: FICGS offers a free marathon service, and we're debating whether it should be 20 or 40 km...
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-18 10:33:59)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I demand a button that buys a ticket automatically when a player is elegible for playing a higher rated tournament and the Epoints to pay it are available, because right now, I have no idea how to do such a feat, in that case, Jempty outsmarted us all, unironically.
Not that my demands have any weight, I think people's lives have gotten better since they ignored me, and perhaps it'd be better for everyone if these rules remained hidden and nobody ever used them again (except Jempty would continue to play a tier up when able), but it's worth a try.
I don't have a bad taste but this has caused me physical pain in the lower back part of my head, is it stressful?
It's nothing personal against George, it's just that climbing the rating ladder is one of the most difficult tasks one can do in life, so when one sees a 2400 player, one respects them, because of all the time and effort they had to put to get there, which, for all players below that tier is immeasurable, if we could measure it we could have that rating too.
But someone getting there by buying tickets that allowed them to face higher rated opposition and take shortcuts to avoid dealing with lower rated players does cheapen the meaning of the number.
I guess it's all about the money, pay to win iff someone buys the Epoints for this reason, and holds a higher rating to skip a tier (note I said iff, not if, not accusing anybody of doing that.)
It's like buying a car instead of running the marathon, and the rating doesn't actually reflect chess skill anymore.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-18 02:57:20)
Clarification of Rating Groups
So, based on this, each time I have tried to enter a higher rated tournament and received a message saying, you are outside the rating range, this has been false.
The rules of this site have actually allowed me a method of getting in, but that automated message has not been updated.
That is extremely poor and has now left a very sour taste in my mouth.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-18 02:55:42)
Clarification of Rating Groups
It is really annoying when the site owner does not bother to clarify this issue and instead leaves it to the players to have to dig through the rules themselves to sort out this issue.
Tickets for a higher class tournament :
However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
George Jempty (2025-11-17 23:47:07)
Clarification of Rating Groups
There is no favoritism in my case, the rule ALSO states if your rating is within 50 points of the higher group, that waiting list has at least 5 entries already, and you pay 10 epoints, you can enter. Perhaps those last qualifications have been amended since last time knew of the rule? I've just brought up my ratings to defend against that I'm making a mockery of this rule. So no favoritism, no mockery, and I'm done with this discussion altogether,
George Jempty (2025-11-12 16:06:48)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
I guess for me it's kind of personal because I played the Budapest on and off for decades, even beat an IM with it in a simul, but eventually became convinced it was borderline unsound. I think you can get interesting games without playing *too* unsoundly, for instance as Black I play the Siesta
George Jempty (2025-11-12 16:02:43)
Increasing the Number of Games in Progre
hmm how about a reward system, based on how many matches somebody finishes, increase the number for them by 10, or 25, e.g. I have no stake in this though -- I forfeited a lot of games in the past
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-11 23:02:26)
Increasing the Number of Games in Progre
What about penalizing players that forfeit too many matches by disallowing them to start new games for a month, or something like that? Other kind of penalties would be problematic because they'd depend on how many games are already running, but a time out for forfeiting games seems reasonable.
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-11 10:46:11)
Increasing the Number of Games in Progre
Hello,
First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Thibault for his efforts. We can play regularly for free. FICGS and LSS are my favorite correspondence chess sites.
Is there a possibility of increasing the maximum number of matches from 50 in the future? For example, 200 matches at a time.
Players who forfeit too many matches will be penalized; perhaps such a system could be implemented. I'm just curious; is it possible?
Regards
Bahadir
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:16:18)
Russian flag replaced
It's very interesting that the only message here from people actually involved is from an Ukranian that was happy becoming Russian. There's always two sides of the story, it's unfortunate almost nobody speaks Russian and we only get to hear the "English speaking world" narrative of the events where the side to take is clear, and you never get to know about the critical events happening there because they are only shown in a language nobody reads.
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:06:10)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Because the optimal defenses by black are so boring! And they don't offer any counter-play, specially against lower-rated opponents that could easily draw as white with those. In uncommon variations they have to think, and that's the only chance they slip.
There's also the aspect of overconfidence, chess engines have gotten so strong one thinks they can defend anything. That was a mistake I made last time I played a Benoni and lost, I thought I played the strongest defense, who knows if my opponent could also have defeated someone else in the same line, but it was a problem of evaluation, not depth, the engine was showing 1.0 scores for positions that were lost, and they were so complicated I couldn't keep up. Near the end my opponent wasn't even playing the moves I predicted and cut the game like a knife through butter.
But I'll always rather lose a game like that than playing the same boring defense that draws against anything but it's a snore fest, apparently I could just play moves from 300 million nodes blindly and draw anyway.
So I continue to play dubious lines and appreciate opponents that deviate from the norm to spice things up, I could easily be over 2300 at the cost of boring games, but I'll be getting there soon anyway and finally find out how people on that tier play against me, since I've never been able to join tournaments of that caliber.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-10 05:48:20)
Clarification of Rating Groups
George:
As I stated in my original post:
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
Your reply would fit if the player had won the lower division and was then trying to enter the higher division.
This is the rule I was quoting.
Your justifications about where your rating sits, or where your rating maybe in the future does not matter. Many players can show this pattern.
I certain have and have been stuck just below a rating cut off and when I have attempted to enter a higher division when there are two spots left open, I have been told no as I not won a lower division.
Therefore, this is why I am seeking a clarification from Thibault.
And it is only Thibault that I want a public answer from.
Either the rule has changed and it should be told to everyone, or an exception has been made for you, which is then clearly wrong as that is favouritism.
I have been told no in the past.
So, which is it Thibault?
George Jempty (2025-11-04 14:25:26)
Russian flag replaced
It's not a matter of being a "political expert". It's just a matter of knowing your history. "Between May 3 and 12, 1916, the British military executed 15 leaders of the Easter Rising for their roles in the rebellion" .... "The swift and public executions, conducted during the First World War, generated significant public outrage and sympathy for the rebel cause in Ireland. What was initially a mixed public reaction to the Rising turned into widespread support". And that was for killing 15 people, so my educated guess is there will eventually be retribution for Israel indisputably (again, not an opinion, or me being a "political expert") KILLING TENS OF THOUSAND OF PALESTINIAN CIVILIANS.
George Jempty (2025-11-04 13:58:15)
Banning players who forfeit too much
ok I will try to find the particular instance that prompted this post (it's been a few weeks so I've forgotten) and let Thib know so he can perhaps take some kind of action
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
Scott Ligon (2025-10-31 12:46:50)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
To make things just slightly interesting. There's no challenge at all in holding the draw with black while playing a standard opening. Modern engines make it trivially easy. But in the Budapest or the Albin Countergambit or Alekhine's Defense, I'm pretty sure black can still hold the draw, but you have to be careful.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2025-10-31 10:59:57)
Russian flag replaced
I see a lot of political experts here. My preference is to avoid playing russians either with their bloody flag or without it.
George Jempty (2025-10-30 10:33:39)
Russian flag replaced
@Garvin, you can be anti-Isreal and NOT be anti-semitic. Do you think killling tens of thousands of innocent Palestinians is going to decrease future terrorism? Isreal's actions are giving rise to future generations of terrorists.
George Jempty (2025-10-30 08:42:46)
Banning players who forfeit too much
I'd have to go through my games again. In any case, maybe they should banished to un-rated tournaments, and only if they finish that, they can play in rated tournaments again
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-27 18:42:15)
Banning players who forfeit too much
Hello George... I didn't see that, please send me details by email (I have many emails late, sorry).
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-27 18:41:02)
Russian flag replaced
I don't intend to remake the whole debate here or anywhere else... I have other things to do. But in brief, IMO:
1. The situation was complex before oct.8
2. Hamas (terrorist org) started it.
3. More than 75% (!) of Gaza buildings were destroyed.
4. How many people killed, how many terrorists?
5. What are the limits of acceptability?
It seems possible to commit war crimes and/or a genocide after being attacked, right?
There can be absolutely no link between estimating that Israel commits a genocide and proving antisemitism, right?
There are other wars in the world, that's right (of different natures).
I'm not in a hurry to take any action... it will take time yet.
Garvin Gray (2025-10-27 14:15:04)
Russian flag replaced
Before you take any action, you should actually check your facts regarding Israel. I really hate discussing this topic, but since now the site owner is considering taking similar against those who display the Israel flag as those who were from Russia and Belarus, it is extremely important to remember how we got here in both situations.
With Russia and Belarus, it was because they started a war of aggression on another correspondence chess federation.
And all sporting bodies took swift action against them in suspending their Federations and preventing their teams from competing, and players from competing and their own flag.
With the situation between Hamas/Hezbollah and Isreal, it was Hamas that was the aggressor. There was no war on July 6, 2023 and Gaza was in a state of peace. But then Hamas attacked Isreal, chopping the heads of babies and taking hostages and raping Israeli women hostages.
What did you expect the Isreali Government to do in response? Sit back and let a terrorist organisation keep the hostages and are you saying that Isreal does not have a right to defend itself?
It is quite disgusting that there are wars all over the world at the moment, about 20 at the moment, but it is only when Jews defend themselves that people feel the need to virtue signal their sense of outrage.
The correct word for them is anti-semites. We used to say 'Never again' after the Holocaust, but it now seem perfectly acceptable to support a terrorist organisation when it attacks Israel and Israel responds by trying to eliminate the threat once and for all.
And it should also be noted as we saw over a week ago. A sixth peace offer was made and Hamas responded like all the others. With more aggression.
Decide to take action against Israel on this site and you prove your antisemitism.
George Jempty (2025-10-26 12:49:30)
DNS failure last week
How does that solve the DNS problem?
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.
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-10-22 18:54:42)
DNS failure last week
Thibault, I was fearing the worst. Although I'm an atheist, I was praying for your safety. To help me avoid future trips to the temple, may I ask for a favor? Please keep a mailing list you can use even if your service provider is unavailable. Now, if I see 3 days of outage and receive no email notification,I will return to the temple.
Bahadir Ozen (2025-10-22 10:43:40)
DNS failure last week
Hello Thibault,
Thank you for your efforts. Let's hope this problem doesn't happen again. We love FICGS and have a great time. Thank you, and I wish you success.
Nelson Bernal Varela (2025-10-21 18:30:36)
DNS failure last week
Ficgs.com is back and with it chess with algoritms and poker without influencers. I really missed it. In this digital wasteland where everything is selfies and stupidity, a corner returns to think, bluff and lose with dignity. May it never leave again.
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...
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:28:05)
Banning players who forfeit too much
Can't we do something about this problem? I now stand to lose rating points by drawing against a serial forfeiter who now continues to play against me after their rating went down over 125 points, and mine has gone up as much. I entered the tournament figuring however that I would gain rating points, except my rating in the meantime has gone up around 125 points. THIS IS UNFAIR. I propose that anybody that forfeits more than one game in a month, that they get banned.
George Jempty (2025-10-05 14:59:40)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Pech/Pechova, I'm looking at you
George Jempty (2025-10-05 14:58:16)
Cheating / Forfeiting
@Unlise Pineda, I do not think those situations are random. Because last one month, at least once, I had 3 or 4 games by "different" players, that have been doing so (letting their time run down to around one day or less) when I got all of their moves within 5 or 10 minutes of one another, very strange.
Herbert Kruse (2025-08-25 11:02:18)
Cheating / Forfeiting
if they are random, they should banned from tournament and all games should be nulled, so that is still a fair tournament
Scott Ligon (2025-07-08 12:59:43)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
You might still find a winning line as the game progresses. But if you think you have better things to do with your time than trying to refute these strategies, I won't disagree. And you're right, if you refute 17.1 @ 50 million nodes, I'll just double the node count next time.
The whole point of the exercise from my point of view is to find an unbeatable deterministic strategy, keeping node count to a minimum. With Stockfish 17.1, 20 million nodes didn't get the job done and 50 million might, I just don't know yet. Either way, I'm confident that unbeatable configurations exist, and I don't think they're far off if I haven't found one already.
Ulises Pineda (2025-07-08 07:43:23)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I thought it was clever of me to retire scripts on demand, but I realized I've been a fool after spending the last week being unable to find a win against the 50 million question and wondering what would I achieve after finding such a line, raising it to 100 million? 200 million?
I stand corrected and the other opponents have it right, I finally get why they don't even bother, so I'm retiring from finding lines that refute the nodes, and it's my first time since this all started where I'll be playing my moves without a winning line on my hand.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2025-07-05 09:43:33)
50 moves rule
I wonder if someone just can't find the winning plan even with engine, how long does the game have to go on?
Scott Ligon (2025-04-24 16:36:24)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Yeah you found a line that beat the 10 million node strategy which I hadn't analyzed. Congratulations! I'm not interested in arguing with you about the next strategy I choose to play. You might find a winning line against Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes, or maybe I'll find it first, or somebody else will. Or maybe nobody will find it because it doesn't exist (this is the possibility you completely discount). I've got nothing more to say to you and I can't imagine how many stupid fights you probably pick with people for no good reason in your day to day life, but your attitude is hilarious.
Ulises Pineda (2025-04-24 16:20:25)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I'm going to find a winning line against it, and then I'm going to find a win against your next step, and then I'm going to find another one against the next one, so skipping steps are a way to save time.
Remember I never made a move in our games until I had found the line, I only played it out, I'm still surprised you haven't dedicated the time to find it as if you were your own opponent, unless I'm the only person in the world that knows how to find such lines.
By using Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million of nodes you would get it retired by me already, I don't understand why you'd want me to retire 10 million or 15 million first, because this has never been about the number of nodes, this is about telling me how you're going to pick your moves so I can find a line that would make your method make a game losing blunder.
Remember you sent me a message thinking 10 million nodes would play just fine right before I made a move that would make it blunder, what I don't know is why didn't you see the move before I played it, or from the distance, and that it surprised you, have people really forgotten how to analyze games? If you build a big tree of moves and replies to them, it's going to contain a line that beats Stockfish at fixed nodes, it'll take me about 24 hours to find the one against Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes, and about 48 hours to find one against Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes, the difference is we'll save the amount of games we have to face each other.
Scott Ligon (2025-04-23 15:21:53)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
My goal is to find the minimal setting where Stockfish can't be beaten, or close to the minimal setting anyway. The title of the thread shows my point of view on this issue. I think currently available versions of Stockfish with relatively modest computing power are already good enough to be unbeatable, regardless of how much money an opponent is being offered or how many supercomputers and grandmasters they have at their disposal when devising a strategy. From the starting position of a game of chess, it simply isn't that hard for modern engines to hold the draw with black. The draw rate on this very site is evidence.
I could make the task easier by generating a small opening book to keep Stockfish out of trouble in the opening, so in the case of Stockfish 17 @ 15 million nodes it might be good enough to simply dictate that it play e5 in response to e4 (I don't know if that specific example is true but it might be - I never found any trouble spots for that strategy with black outside of the Sicilian). But I want to do this with no opening book and also no access to endgame tablebases, just the engine's recommendation using a set number of nodes for the search. The settings I've tried so far fell short, but I think they weren't far off, so I'm taking only small steps forward. Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes seems like a good next step to me. If somebody finds a winning line against it, then I'll take the next step, either increasing the node count or if enough time has passed I'll move on to the next version of Stockfish.
Ulises Pineda (2025-04-23 14:49:42)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I'll request that if you ever play against me, jump at least to Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes, because a doubling of nodes is some 50 elo boost to the model, so a lot of games can be saved by increasing the nodes, as finding a winning line against such a thing isn't more difficult in reality, it just takes more time, so I guess those people don't think winning a game is worth the extra time used, or maybe they really don't know how, but if someone offered a million dollars for the line I'm sure they'd sit down and find it.
It's a matter of strength, someone with Stockfish 20 could find the line with a relative ease, and I don't think it'll play a perfect game already either, the blind spots just switch places.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 18:24:32)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Stockfish 17 at high depth is just too good though. Your best chance to defeat me is that I make a mistake entering the move. I try to be careful, but on a long enough time scale it's inevitable. Some combination of bored and tired or a misclick, I don't know what, but human error is the most likely answer to that question.
Ulises Pineda (2025-03-29 18:12:32)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
A more interesting question is how to defeat YOU. I figure it'd require playing into a position where the 15 million node strategy blunders but where Stockfish 17 at high depth does not notice it so you play the losing move instead of taking over the game.
Of course such a discussion would be against your interests and against mine in a future conflict, but I'm looking forward to it.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 18:03:58)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I think there's a decent chance that the 15 million node strategy is unbeatable, but I can't say what that chance is. Maybe I overestimate it. I have spent considerable time looking for a winning line for white and I haven't been able to find one. But, I had that same opinion about the 10 million node strategy before I found evidence in my games that it loses. Specifically games in the Sicilian. I haven't found any other winning lines for white.
As for my opponents, I think mostly they enter tournaments and play their usual game. I'm just another opponent. My focus is on the experiment I'm running, but I wouldn't assume everyone else is focused on it. But if anyone cares to prove that the 15 million node strategy is beatable, exploitive play is clearly the way to go about it. This most recent game shows that even a move that fails to give white an objective advantage could still merit consideration as a possible exploit against the fixed node strategy.
Ulises Pineda (2025-03-29 17:10:11)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
What I don't get is, what are your other opponents doing? I mean, it took some time, but at all points I had a line that I knew would beat the 10 million strategy if they were followed through, this is an opportunity to always get ponder hits because one always knows what move will be played in all positions.
Are those people aware that the fixed node strategy will lead to a draw, and they play it anyway? That's too weird to me.
I'm confident in a future game against the 15 million node strategy I would find another such line and play it out, just to retire it, but I wouldn't make any moves in the game until I had it, I don't know what those players that know all moves played would lead to a draw are doing.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 15:42:08)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I played one last game using the 10 million node strategy against Pineda. The game ended in a draw, but I had to deviate from the 10 million node strategy at the end to avoid losing. I thought the finish was interesting.
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=147951
The key position came after black's 56th move, and up to that point with black I am just following the 10 million node strategy. These are the moves:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Bxh4 Be5
I ran a width 6 / depth 55 search with Stockfish 17 on the position after black's 56th move, and the top 5 moves for white along with their eval scores were:
57. Re1
+ (0.39)
57. Qf5
+ (0.37)
57. Qg4+
+ (0.32)
57. Bg3
+ (0.25)
57. Qh3
+ (0.01)
Based on that, you might think white should only consider the top 4 moves. But if we look at this from the point of view of exploiting the 10 million node strategy, here are the evaluations of those top 5 moves after the 10 million node strategy response:
57. Re1 Bd4+
+ (0.52)
57. Qf5 Bd4+
+ (0.54)
57. Qg4+ Qg6
+ (0.42)
57. Bg3 Bc3
+ (0.27)
57. Qh3 Rg6
+ (1.65)
So presumably using that logic, my opponent played Qh3 where the 10 million node strategy would require me to respond with Rg6, which loses the game. Qh3 doesn't stand out at all unless you're trying to exploit the 10 million node strategy. The actual game ended with 57. Qh3 Bd4+ and we agreed to a draw.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-03-27 23:35:56)
The future of cheating over the board?
"Scientists create sound that can curve through a crowd and reach just one person
Engineers at Penn State have introduced a breakthrough audio system called “audible enclaves” that can send sound directly to one person without anyone else hearing it—and all without the use of headphones.
The system relies on ultrasound waves, which travel silently through the air. When two beams with slightly different frequencies cross paths, they generate an audible tone right at that meeting point, allowing only the intended recipient to hear the message.
Even more impressive, the sound can curve around obstacles to reach its target. In initial tests, it worked effectively up to three feet away. This innovation opens the door for private audio experiences in shared spaces and better control of sound in noisy environments, though it's not yet ready for commercial use."
(Source: Facebook)
Ulises Pineda (2025-03-20 00:31:48)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
Hello, I was a Rybka Forum moderator for several years, as Uly/Vytron, and the person with most games at their Correspondence Chess section.
I've been amassing a great deal of chess analysis since 2007 in Bookup files (later named Chess Openings Wizard files) so I have all the analysis that was posted on the forum.
It was able to hold up for years, until Sotckfish NNUE appeared, that was the software that obsoleted the analysis, as so many moves were misevaluated (it said white had a big advantage when it was the opposite, and vice versa) and Stockfish NNUE was providing, at low depth, moves that were refuting entire variations and trees.
It was at that point I realized I had more than a decade of useless analysis, and it's not just the Fried Liver, it happened in all of chess. In all the positions I analyzed for my games.
Which means any recovered analysis from rybkaforum would be garbage, since I do have it but had to start new trees from scratch because nothing worthwhile could be recovered from the old ones, and it was more trouble than it was worth, Stockfish NNUE would produce variations that from scratch would be more useful to generate than wasting time refuting the old lines.
At the end of the day, getting unpublished was a fortune because people will not waste time looking at those obsolete lines.
Bogoljub Teverovski (2025-03-16 19:04:40)
Next thematic tournament
we can stay at 5.Nxf6 with a free choice exf6 or gxf6
Scott Ligon (2025-03-04 16:30:48)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
So the current state of the experiment is that white can defeat the 10 million node strategy, and so far I haven't seen a way for white to win against the 15 million node strategy. Somebody might find a win for white, it just hasn't happened yet.
I already mentioned that if this strategy leads me to a losing position and I notice this in time, I will intervene and stop playing the strategy to try to avoid losing. I will add another exception. If I reach a position that is winning or close to it, I will intervene to try to play for the win, because of course these fixed node strategies don't always find the best move. This has already happened in at least one of my games but I wanted to make my policy clear. I'm using a deterministic strategy as a sort of autopilot mode, but if I get close to winning or losing, I'll turn off the autopilot. This is rare though. Most of the time neither side gets a decisive advantage and I'll stay on autopilot and the game will end in a draw.
Wilhelm Schuett (2025-02-27 01:05:45)
Next thematic tournament
https://shop.chessbase.com/en/products/fernandez_the_modern_sicilian_surprise_in_60min?Ref=RF70-5OH0EFN840 5...h5!? in the 2…Nc6-Sicilian
Scott Ligon (2025-02-17 04:20:15)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Here are three lines I analyzed with Stockfish. I think black should be able to hold the draw in all of them, but the 10 million node strategy makes some mistakes. Notably 54. Qf3 Bd6 is bad and black should have played Bg3 there, but apparently not bad enough to lose unless further mistakes are made. Anyway these are the lines I looked at.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Bxh4 Be5
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Qf5 Re5 57. Qf4 Re6
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Qf5 Rf6 56. Qg5+ Kh7 57. Qxh4+ Kg7
Scott Ligon (2025-02-16 21:19:28)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Since I only won because you made a mistake entering the last move, I will give you a return match at 10 million nodes. You can play it however you want but if we reach a position where I can see that the 10 million node strategy takes me into a losing position, I will take over at that point. Other than that one game, I'm officially retiring the 10 million node strategy since I already know that white can win against it.
Check the waiting lists. I think there's a tournament where I'm first on the list and there's one other player. If you enter third, I believe you would have white against me. I think that's how it works.
Ulises Pineda (2025-02-16 20:29:13)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
In our game I tried to apply some psychology, reach a position that is lost for black where the engine gives a low evaluation so you don't take over the defense of the position until it's too late, too bad I was incapable of making the move I intended to play.
I'd like to request that if we ever play again and I am white and you are black, that we repeat the same game and you turn on the 10 million nodes script after I play the correct move, and we see what would have happened, while I ignore the winning line found against the script.
That's the only chance I have for all the hours of analysis I spent in our game to not go to waste.
Scott Ligon (2025-02-15 22:20:35)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
What I'm calling the winning line is only winning if black is restricted to the strategy of Stockfish 17 using 10 million node searches, though by the end of the line it is also objectively winning. Some of black's responses when using this strategy are mistakes, otherwise white wouldn't have a winning line. 21... g5 might not be black's best response but the position should still be defensible at that point. It starts to get very bad after 27 Rba1 Nf7 which I think is black's fatal error or close to it. Prior to that black should still have some defense.
Scott Ligon (2025-02-15 15:43:10)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
The position after 56 Ra7 is clearly winning if you run an analysis with Stockfish. I'm not saying it's obvious from a human perspective but if both players are using engines, black should resign at that point (and probably a few moves earler).
The move numbers don't line up with your game because I removed a repetition, but from your game if you go to the position after 22. Re1 Rg7, it's the same position as the line shown in this thread after 20. Re1 Rg7 and you can follow the line from there.
Scott Ligon (2025-01-17 14:44:57)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
To be clear, I still don't know if it can be beaten at 10 million nodes. Someone might eventually find a line with white that beats Stockfish 17 at these settings. But the longer the experiment goes without anyone finding such a line, the more confident I will be that it can't be beaten.
Here is a line that beats Stockfish 17 at 5 million nodes.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. d4 cxd4 4. Nxd4 Nf6 5. Nc3 e5 6. Ndb5 d6 7. Nd5 Nxd5 8. exd5 Nb8 9. a4 Be7 10. Bd2 O-O 11. a5 f5 12. Be2 Bd7 13. O-O Be8 14. Ra2 h6 15. Kh1 Bg5 16. Be1 a6 17. Na3 Nd7 18. Nc4 Qc7 19. Bb4 Nc5 20. Ra3 Bb5 21. Nb6 Rad8 22. c4 Be8 23. Be1 Nd7 24. Nxd7 Qxd7 25. b4 Rc8 26. f3 Bh5 27. Bf2 e4 28. c5 dxc5 29. Bxc5 Rfe8 30. d6 Kh8 31. f4 Bxe2 32. Qxe2 Bf6 33. Qh5 Rf8 34. Rd1 Kh7 35. Rg3 Bd8 36. Rd5 Rf6 37. Qd1 Rf7 38. Re3 g5 39. Qh5 gxf4 40. Re1 e3 41. Rf1 Rf8 42. Rd4 Bf6 43. Rdxf4 Bg5 44. R4f3 Qf7 45. Qxf7+ Rxf7 46. Bxe3 Bxe3 47. Rxe3 Kg7 48. g3 Rc4 49. Rf4 Rc1+ 50. Kg2 Rd1 51. Re7 Rd2+ 52. Rf2 Rxd6 53. Rxf7+ Kxf7 54. Rxf5+ Kg6 55. Rc5 Rd2+ 56. Kf3 Rb2 57. Rc4
Ulises Pineda (2025-01-17 14:34:09)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
That's very interesting. Can you share the line that defeats Stockfish at 5 million nodes per move? If it has reached perfection at ten million, we could investigate how many nodes it needs for it.
There are 100 results for Ho in wikichess.
Hana Pechova (2017)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3 d5 cxd5 Nxd5 e4 Nxc3 bxc3 Bg7 Nf3 c5 h3 O-O Be2 Nc6 Be3 cxd4 cxd4 Qa5 Bd2
Transpose to wikichess #247941#
============
Contributors : Hana Pechova
Hana Pechova (2017)
Nf3 b6 g3 Bb7 Bg2 c5
Transpose to wikichess #194693#
============
Contributors : Hana Pechova
Victor Hugo Martinez Camacho (1356)
e4 c6 Nf3 d5 Ne5 dxe4 Nc3 Bf5 Bc4 e6 O-O Nf6 d4
Transpose to wikichess #240982#
============
Contributors : Victor Hugo Martinez Camacho
Victor Hugo Martinez Camacho (1356)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 b5 Bb3 d6 Nc3 O-O
Transpose to wikichess #14813#
============
Contributors : Victor Hugo Martinez Camacho
Victor Hugo Martinez Camacho (1356)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 d4 Bf5 Nc3 Qa5
Transpose to wikichess #88606#
============
Contributors : Victor Hugo Martinez Camacho
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Simal Moreira, Leonardo (BRA) [member # 10062] Correspondence chess : 2374 Ranked # 107 in the rating list. Rating history : 2326 2361 2358 2360 2374 2374 2374 This member has no profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |