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 100 results for Koch Christian in the games.
Game_62430 Game_62428 Game_62426 Game_62423 Game_62419 Game_62414 Game_62408 Game_62401 Game_59648 Game_59647 Game_59646 Game_59642 Game_59638 Game_59633 Game_59400 Game_59399 Game_59396 Game_59393 Game_59389 Game_59384 Game_47835 Game_47834 Game_47833 Game_47829 Game_47825 Game_47820 Game_47402 Game_47401 Game_47398 Game_47395 Game_47391 Game_47386 Game_45690 Game_45689 Game_45688 Game_45687 Game_45682 Game_45677 Game_39492 Game_39490 Game_39488 Game_39485 Game_39481 Game_39476 Game_36558 Game_36557 Game_36556 Game_36555 Game_36554 Game_36553 Game_36120 Game_36118 Game_36116 Game_36113 Game_36109 Game_36104 Game_34326 Game_34325 Game_34324 Game_34320 Game_34316 Game_34311 Game_34305 Game_34304 Game_34303 Game_34299 Game_34295 Game_34290 Game_33518 Game_33517 Game_33514 Game_33511 Game_33507 Game_33502 Game_33262 Game_33261 Game_33258 Game_33255 Game_33251 Game_33246 Game_32920 Game_32919 Game_32918 Game_32914 Game_32910 Game_32905 Game_32116 Game_32114 Game_32112 Game_32109 Game_32105 Game_32100 Game_31318 Game_31317 Game_31315 Game_31312 Game_31308 Game_31303 Game_26808 Game_26807
There are at least 5 results for Koch in the forum.
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.
Thibault de Vassal (2011-11-13 19:52:28)
List ordered by rating
Here is, but as usual the new ratings (january 2012) will be taken in account...
Erwin Thiering 2515
Michael Bergmann 2475
Xavier Pichelin 2454
Thibault de Vassal 2449
Herbert Kruse 2436
Pavel Hse 2332
Ljubomir Tsenkov 2314
Rubn Cmes 2300
Wayne Lowrance 2266
Dariusz Fraczek 2261
Ramil Germanes 2255
Miroslav Gazi 2255
Alexander Blinchevsky 2253
Michael Sharland 2251
Sergey Kokoryukin 2251
Andrey Razumikhin 2250
Valery Nemchenko 2245
Lubos Fric 2241
Kevin D. Plant 2237
Christoph Schroeder 2236
Viktor Shishkin 2234
Slobodan Ilic 2218
Dmitri Mamrukov 2211
Vitaly Rudenko 2203
Alvin Alcala 2203
Carlos Snchez 2203
Garvin Gray 2200
Scott Nichols 2189
Peter Unger 2181
Martin Zeman 2181
Christian Koch 2167
Stephen Hamby 2163
John Schutte 2136
David Evans 2132
Nelson Bernal Varela 2130
Darren DiAlfonso 2123
Ardiantez Polkwitzauer 2123
Thomas Dineen 2118
Peter W. Anderson 2112
Steve Lim 2110
Yu Ming Hoe 2100
Arkadiusz Wosch 2093
Djordje Kasabasic 2093
Luis Flores 2084
Daniel Parmet 2083
Lalit Kapoor 2080
Erik L. van Dijk 2074
Bernd Wolf 2072
Jose Lopez 2071
Sergey Uzdin 2064
Rodolfo d Ettorre 2064
Janos Helmer 2063
Om Prakash 2053
Mykola Simashkevitch 2043
Alexis Duenas 2037
Ireneusz Kasznia 2036
Mihail Larsky 2028
Joop Simmelink 2026
Pan Hardfeldt 2020
Henri Muller 2000
Jaroslav senior Pech 2000
Jaroslaw Gibas 2000
Bogoljub Teverovski 1997
Willy De Waele 1996
Fernando Vasquez 1992
Jose Moreira 1979
Andrew Endean 1975
Henri-Louis Muller 1972
Jose Maria Velasco 1972
Jordi Domingo 1969
Janeen Walden 1958
Andy Richard 1956
Roberto Migliorini 1949
Erika van Dijk 1943
Daniel Reboredo 1938
Coco Maceda 1938
Michael Rogers 1933
Aleksandr Aksenov 1927
Mariusz Maciej Broniek 1923
Robert Wilhelm 1901
Kieran Moore 1900
John Dyson 1889
Catalin Nita 1888
Daniel Jabot 1878
Johanes Suhardjo 1875
Mikhail Ruzin 1871
Benjamin Block 1863
Ilmar Ambos 1859
Vyacheslav Shchelykalin 1859
Jan Peter Lommler 1844
Stanislas Gounant 1840
Mircea Hrubaru 1838
Sasha Lipsits 1833
Nilson Pereira 1833
Aleksey Payzansky 1804
Jai Prakash Singh 1800
Fredi Brumec 1800
Gleen Duran 1800
Josef Strohmeier 1800
Ryszard Sternik 1776
Stepan Pech 1767
Dieter Faust 1764
Dmitriy Malish 1760
Dimitrios Ropokis 1743
Hasan Kirali 1715
Eddit Moreul 1700
Behzad Shahmiri 1700
Jaimie Wilson 1684
Dinesh Bhandarkar 1682
Philip Roe 1667
Olli Ylnen 1660
Graham Cridland 1655
Juan Alvar 1653
Jeremy Banta 1644
Lus Gonzaga Grego 1643
Pablo Siciliano 1623
Mariusz Jandula 1600
Sergey Biryukov 1598
Alejandro Canovas 1589
Jimmy Huggins 1577
Matthew O Brien 1575
Pablo Ruano 1565
Khaled Toutaoui 1528
Stanimir Denchev 1505
Leo Malagar 1500
Richard Hendricks 1479
Eric Price 1469
Antonio Pereira 1456
Angelo Piantadosi 1420
Simon Huxtable 1388
Peter Krakovsky 1326
Marc-Antoine Leurette 1243
Jorge Orden 1204
Hana Pechova 1204
Jorma Hkkinen 1192
Des Jefferis 1186
Deon Whittaker 1111
Matej Pech 1074
Jiri Mach 1022
Cdric Cavaill 1003
Jay Melquiades 0909
Jaroslav Pech 0697
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-29 23:01:27)
Most active players, amazing statistics!
These statistics (updated every 2 days) are available at :
http://www.ficgs.com/about.html
And the overall winner is........ :)
Players most active : General (moves played)
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 124234
2. Rolf Staggat : 81806
3. Anderson Barradas : 55829
4. Stephane Legrand : 47936
5. Scott Nichols : 46711
6. Mark Noble : 37387
7. Findlay Murray : 35874
8. Volker Koslowski : 33241
9. Don Groves : 29539
10. Thibault de Vassal : 26104
11. Francisco Gramajo : 25281
12. Sergey Uzdin : 25256
13. Michael Sharland : 24890
14. Josef Riha : 24193
15. Jason Repa : 22765
16. Laurine Sgur : 22577
17. Alexis Bromo : 20198
18. Benjamin Collette : 20112
19. Fernando Vasquez : 19928
20. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 19174
21. Christian Koch : 18450
22. Evgeny Yarkov : 17168
23. Xavier Pichelin : 16559
24. Garvin Gray : 16388
25. Ranganathan Raman : 15750
26. Sebastian Boehme : 15190
27. Zdravko Stoyanov : 15186
28. Nick Ioffe : 15151
29. Phil Cook : 15007
30. Sean McNabb : 14572
31. Daniel Parmet : 13814
32. Ilmars Cirulis : 13118
33. Joaquim Malpalma : 13057
34. Dmitriy Panov : 12733
35. Nelson Bernal Varela : 12119
36. Marco Roncagliolo : 11741
37. Dmytro Romaniuk : 11648
38. Miroslav Rakovic : 11435
39. Nick Burrows : 11242
40. Janeen Walden : 10967
41. Claude Brisson : 10812
42. Sandor Porkolab : 10714
43. Christophe Czekaj : 10678
44. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
45. Peter Willoughby : 10634
46. Benjamin Block : 10633
47. Kate Lubeck : 10155
48. Charlie Neil : 10076
49. Darko Pipac : 10072
50. William Taylor : 10036
Players most active : Go
1. Don Groves : 17026
2. Claude Brisson : 10812
3. Nick Ioffe : 10795
4. Alejandro Suarez-Moreno : 10018
5. Mickal Simon : 8986
6. Thibault de Vassal : 8870
7. Sean McNabb : 8666
8. Sergey Tarassov : 8236
9. Phil Cook : 8186
10. Tetsuya Kobayashi : 7816
Players most active : Chess
1. Josef Riha : 24119
2. Fernando Vasquez : 19820
3. Zdravko Stoyanov : 14523
4. Anderson Barradas : 12587
5. Ilmars Cirulis : 12200
6. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 12068
7. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
8. Garvin Gray : 10638
9. Scott Nichols : 10211
10. Charlie Neil : 10076
Players most active : Chess 960
1. Christophe Czekaj : 1224
2. Joaquim Malpalma : 916
3. Frederick Estieu : 672
4. Ilmars Cirulis : 605
5. Pavel Hse : 600
6. Sefa Sarihan : 524
7. Sandor Porkolab : 512
8. Jay Melquiades : 495
9. Christian Koch : 470
10. Rick Spangler : 447
Players most active : Big Chess
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 5583
2. Peter Willoughby : 4368
3. Jos Carrizo : 3319
4. Thibault de Vassal : 3199
5. Mark Noble : 2949
6. Sandor Porkolab : 2467
7. Volker Koslowski : 1887
8. Paul Knig : 1790
9. William Taylor : 1706
10. Ranganathan Raman : 1620
Players most active : Poker Holdem
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 111119
2. Rolf Staggat : 75570
3. Stephane Legrand : 41639
4. Anderson Barradas : 38671
5. Scott Nichols : 36500
6. Findlay Murray : 33008
7. Mark Noble : 31172
8. Volker Koslowski : 25829
9. Michael Sharland : 20721
10. Francisco Gramajo : 20431
Congrats Heinz-Georg, definitely you're the most addicted player ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-10-02 11:50:49)
Game 16370, towards a new rule ?
What do you think about this case :
http://www.ficgs.com/game_16370.html
Last move : Qe4+ 2008 September 30 19:57:40
White clock - 94 days 18:34:55 (58 days 08:20:25)
Black clock - 0 day 01:19:54
[Event "FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_A__000032"]
[Site "FICGS"]
[Date "2007.11.30"]
[Round "1"]
[White "Koch,Christian"]
[Black "Stephenson,Andrew"]
[Result "*"]
[WhiteElo "2140"]
[BlackElo "2104"]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Be3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.h3 Be7 9.Qf3 O-O 10.O-O-O b5 11.g4 b4 12.Nd5 Nxd5 13.exd5 Bc8 14.Kb1 Nd7 15.Qe2 Bb7 16.f4 Qc7 17.fxe5 Nxe5 18.Qf2 Bd8 19.Bg2 a5 20.Nd4 a4 21.Rhe1 a3 22.b3 Ra5 23.Nf5 g6 24.Nh6+ Kg7 25.Qf4 Bxd5 26.Bxd5 Rxd5 27.Qxb4 Qc6 28.Rxd5 Qxd5 29.Qf4 f6 30.Bc1 Qc5 31.Rd1 Ba5 32.Qe4 Rc8 33.c4 Bb4 34.h4 Qc6 35.Rd5 Re8 36.Qf4 Bc5 37.Bd2 Qb7 38.Bc3 Bb4 39.g5 f5 40.Qd2 Bxc3 41.Qxc3 Kf8 42.Kc1 Qb6 43.c5 Qc6 44.Rxd6 Qh1+ 45.Kc2 Qe4+ 46.Kc1 Qh1+ 47.Kc2 Qe4+ 48.*
So here player Black has good chances to lose the game on time, even if the best thing player White can do is to draw the game. In my opinion, "in general" player Black should play his next move, unless an analysis prove that the game is a forced draw - according to the rules, http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#adjudications - and eventually the result will be corrected after the game, but I'd like to know what other players think about this situation in general...
Thanks for helping to build strong rules.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-02 17:43:05)
Who beats Garry Kasparov ?
Funny :)
http://www.ibeatgarry.com/
A "Kasparov number" of 3 for Patrice Verdier, great ;)
Other winners : Janos Helmer, Christian Koch, Farit Balabaev, Marc Lacrosse, David Angeli... Finally everyone beats Garry :))
There are 100 results for Koch in wikichess.
[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 !
|
Bleker, Frits (GRC) [member # 1397] Correspondence chess : 2498 Ranked # 29 in the rating list. Rating history : 2469 2469 2533 2533 2533 2503 2498 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 |  |