|
|
Home Information Login Register Waiting lists Membership Hall of fame Tournaments Best game Wikichess Rating list Problems Forum Links Help About
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] |
|
Support to all people under attack
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 !
|