MATHE - Search

   		Free Internet Chess Games Server

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



Free Internet Chess & Go Server

                                          
Search


Here are 0 results for Mathe in the games.




There are at least 42 results for Mathe in the forum.


Thibault de Vassal    (2023-07-27 19:06:48)
FIDE rating change proposal

Maybe you heard about this strange proposal made by a mathematician to make FIDE ratings (<2000) more coherent against some deflation...

http://en.chessbase.com/post/fide-seeks-proposals-rating-changes

http://www.chess.com/news/view/fide-mathematician-proposes-changes-to-improve-rating-accuracy


I'm somewhat doubtful about this idea to change some data rather than the algorithm, what do you think?


Thibault de Vassal    (2018-03-14 23:12:38)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela

Nelson Bernal Varela is an early FICGS correspondence chess player, now rated 2277 but also rated 2359 at ICCF (Correspondence Chess Master - CCM).

Last but not least, and as all poker holdem players here probably noticed, he is also our ranked #1 for years, who just reached an outstanding poker rating of 2382, while number two is now rated "only" 2212. A good occasion to ask him a few questions, that he kindly accepted to answer.

-----------------------

- Hello Nelson! You are the 2nd most active player at FICGS for years now. Everyone here probably noticed your incredible results in poker tournaments. "Correspondence poker holdem" was probably a strange idea as it is very unusual and very different from "Internet poker". What's your opinion on this and on the presence of a card game (played without money) at FICGS?


NBV: There are more important things than money and one of those is HONOR; It is honorable to be a chess master, international master, grandmaster, world chess champion at ICCF and at FICGS and to be number one in the ranking. It is honorable to be a FICGS world champion at Go and to be first in the ranking, it is honorable to be poker world champion at FICGS poker and in my case, it is an honor to be number one at poker here at FICGS during the last years, understanding that our general level of play has improved remarkably. None of these activities produces money, but to achieve any of the mentioned titles, it is necessary to have extraordinary abilities.

When I was about 18 years old, I had the opportunity to meet a person with immense material wealth, we spent whole evenings playing chess and then I told him my perceptions about each movement of the game. He thanked me for my chess explanations and paid me with good money. That wealthy man in his turn told me about life and recommended that I should always be proud of the gifts I had, since he knew, with all the money he had and being able to hire the best grandmasters in the world, that it could hardly come at the level of chess master. That person told me that the intellect can be turned into money whenever you want.

Now, by playing poker without money at FICGS, I understood that it was my extraordinary and wonderful opportunity to study-learn-perfect and test my poker theories without costing me a single dollar. In FICGS there is no money, but thanks to the knowledge I gained playing poker in FICGS, today I can go after the money in online poker rooms and probably in OTB poker tournaments. I am studying the possibility of becoming a professional poker player.


- The understanding of your opponent's behaviour is usually quite important at Poker. Do you manage to establish some profiles while playing so many simultaneous hands & games? Did you build any method?


NBV: Today I am sure that the most important thing to raise, and keep raising my level in poker, has been to build a psychological profile of mine, to get to know Nelson Bernal Varela in depth and above all to understand me, accept me, love me and be work every day eliminating my technical errors, strategic, psychological that make me play badly. I am aware that in poker I can play perfectly and still lose, what I can not forgive me is playing badly, which is why I work hard correcting my wrong decisions.

Of course, there is a space in my brain where I have built a psychological profile of each contender, that profile I have been able to elaborate with all the information that is provided to me in each hand we play. The way each of us plays, gives reliable information about our personality.

About my method I can write the following: A few years ago, I created a table in excel, where I had all the games with each contender, I identified them with the FICGS numeration and each movement in each hand (preflop, flop, turn, river ) it I was writing and studying; I started to add technical-psychological variables that seemed important to me, resulting in 20 variables that I had to qualify in each movement. With the passage of time and my effort, I no longer needed the excel table and I did not use it again (it was exhausting and time consuming) because I was assimilating things faster and with greater depth. Today I can say that I evaluate these 20 variables in a natural way, as if I was breathing and that when I am at a poker table, online or real, after a few minutes I get the psychological profile of the table and each of my opponents. In the pocket of my shirt I keep a small paper with the list of variables, periodically reread it and I wonder if I should modify, remove or add something.


- You won 1007 poker games, and lost only 380, with a ratio usually going from 57% to 80% according to your best opponents. Undoubtly you know the mathematics hidden behind poker but that may not explain everything. How did you learn to play?


NBV: Mathematics is an ingredient in poker, in the same way that my psychological aspects and of my opponents (I recommend reading-studying about four times the book “The Poker mindset” of Ian Taylor and Matthew Hilger), it is vital to understand the Law of Large Numbers. Next I make a list of topics that I consider important to raise the level of poker; compete with EV+ cards, you have to know the small ball theory of Negreanu (but not apply it, hahaha) you have to always look at the texture of the board, you have to evaluate your reality and your future, also that of your opponents (act and power), the position to talk is important, the stack, the personality of the table, know who has the panic button on. All these and other variables must be evaluated in the few seconds they have to make a move and the only important thing is to make the right decision according to the circumstances. There is a good list of poker books to read... it is mandatory to have read about 15 poker books.


- As for me, I may be wrong but I can't imagine that you reached such a rating without special techniques & maybe by optimizing it in some ways... Of course, "rating management" is not a problem, and it is only one thing with a limited impact, but maybe you have some other secrets? What about this "+1" technique that I noticed in many of our games, if this is not a secret? :)


NBV: In these years I have used different techniques that I had to read, study, learn, repeat, modify, invent and sometimes eliminate. Poker is a sport that seems easy, with time one manages to understand that it has an amazing complexity, today I consider poker to be as complex as chess and I study them in a "similar" way. As an example, I have tried to create "openings in poker"; based only on probabilities I invented something that I called mirror theory and another "opening" that I called opposite outs. I am fascinated by mathematics and from the mathematical perspective they are perfect "theories-openings", but I have lost tournaments and a lot of money for applying such theories in mistaken emotional moments. In poker it is important to never lose sight of the Law of Large Numbers and be aware that this LAW likes to make fun of each one of us... I am working on giving an emotional nuance to my theories "mirror" and "opposite outs". There are moments when perfect mathematics becomes an unforgivable psychological error...

For the last few months I have modified my way of playing and my results have improved; Today it must be much more difficult to win a game me, thanks to small and imperceptible adjustments that of course only I know, because I have followed my mistakes-successes-evolution in the game over several years.


- Isn't it too frustrating for you to play heads up only (here at least) ? Of course it is a way to improve this important technical case but we know that many complexities come with 3 to 8 players on the table, which is the most common case in professional poker tournaments.


NBV: Currently I spend little time every day playing heads-up in FICGS, thanks to the fact that I have the profile of each contender. The 4-5 hours that I study poker daily, include practice in micro limits in cash tables of 6 players and tournaments in tables of 8-9 players. I think I'm covering the whole range of possibilities, experiencing game situations between 1 and 8 contenders.


- What do you think about computer analysis in poker? Do you think it could make a difference here just like the way we play advanced chess?


NBV: I think the algorithms are ready to be written in machine language and the question is where are those algorithms? Well, in the brains of the best players in the world and in their games compiled in huge databases. But programming language can be accelerated with artificial intelligence brains, making A.I. studying databases of the best professionals, playing with itself millions of games and building an invincible TACTIC-STRATEGIC SYSTEM, similar to chess software and GO... I think preflop and flop play would be very similar between humans and artificial intelligence, but on the turn and on the river artificial intelligence would take considerable advantage, but in the short time the level of human poker would rise because artificial intelligence would teach us to play poker, this event that would diminish the profits of the professionals. It will always be said in favor of poker that because it is an incomplete game of information, to make computer algorithms are quite complicated, but despite that, I am sure that artificial intelligence will far surpass the best human poker player. It is possible that an artificial intelligence that plays a perfect poker already exists, but unlike GO and chess, poker does produce a lot of money. Due to the money factor, in today's world, it is very difficult that there is a Prometheus willing to steal fire from the gods and give it to mankind...


- How would you describe your relation to games in general?


NBV: I can summarize it in one of the first chess books I had the fortune to read, by the great Danish master Bent Larsen, "I play to win"


- When did you start to play chess & poker? Do you play other games?


NBV: My first contact with chess was at the age of nine, it was love at first sight and until death separates us; I must confess that for some years we have been separated, due to my stupidity and my erroneous decisions. I have always been self-taught in any subject, my method is to buy about 10 to 15 books of the subject that interests me and I read them thoroughly, sometimes 3 or 4 times; already with that information in my head and thanks to the constant practice, I build MY SYSTEM (Nimzowitch) according to my personality, my dreams, my desires, my anguish, my fears... I was youth champion of Bogotá, for 4 years , my OTB level was strong, but I had to abandon chess because I had to work and survive; Being an athlete in Colombia is an absolutely difficult thing, but being a chess player is extremely complicated since there is no support or respect from society and you can not live by chess, because it does not produce money.

I met poker in 2009 in FICGS, at that time I was in a terrible emotional situation, trying to get away from a relationship with a woman that I should never approach and where I wasted valuable time and energy. In that context, looking for my thoughts to be occupied, I ended up playing the FICGS C-24 poker tournament and tied the first place with three more players; I kept playing, without understanding what was happening with the cards and obviously, losing, until in 2010 I won the FICGS D-21 tournament with perfect score, 6 out of 6. I had already bought-read my first beginner book: Poker for Dummies of Harroch and Krieger, but my poker was coarse, wild, street, intuitive, amateur, without dedication or study. In the background of this paragraph, the affection and gratitude that I have for FICGS is condensed, a place where I have been able to build-practice-study-test MY SYSTEM in poker.

I play Backgammon, I do not care that it may sound pretentious-petulant, but I have a very strong level and I have not read my first book yet. Hahaha. Any year I register as a participant in the world championship and I will cause disgust to more than one professional. Hahaha. Unlike chess and poker, backgammon does not cause me stress, on the contrary, I feel a lot of joy and pleasure when I play backgammon. I feel something similar with math, reading and music. It's true and I'm proud, I've always been a NERD.


- We all know how difficult it is to reach a number 1 rank but it is even more difficult to keep it during a long time. What is your motivation? Do you have more goals to achieve (chess & other games included) ?


NBV: My motivation in any activity I undertake in my life is to do it with absolute passion (passion is everything you would do to get a breath of air, in the second before dying by drowning or suffocation).

I have several goals to accomplish before December 2021; In the ICCF correspondence chess I must reach the 2400 elo and get the titles of International Master, SIM and Grand Master, also perform outstanding performances in world championships. In FICGS Chess I must complete my Master and International Master titles and overcome the 2450 elo, also snatch the title from our eternal champion Eros Riccio. You're warned Eros, hahaha. On the LSS site where I also play, www.chess-server.net I want to be a world champion.

In POKER I find myself playing micro limits bets in several online sites; in June 2018 I hope I have built some bankroll. In July of 2018 I must be evaluating my poker to know if my immediate goal is to become a professional poker player, that would completely change my chess goals and I would have to dedicate myself to OTB poker. At the moment I study and practice poker every day, about 4-5 hours a day. At this moment my poker is full of errors that I am eliminating one by one. MY SYSTEM needs to win and raise money in the micro limits, so that it can succeed in professional poker.
In chess OTB I should become a great master, but that topic should be left as a goal for after 2021. I could achieve the record of being the oldest human in getting the title of Grand Master OTB. Hahaha.

In backgammon I would like to play some important tournaments in USA and Europe and maybe to be OTB world champion, but at the moment I do not have clarity on how to do it. I must mature that idea.
I hope they invent immortality before I die and that I have enough money to buy it, because time is what I need to realize all these and other dreams...


- Finally, playing so many games on several websites (obviously with serious ambitions in each game & place) may look quite inhuman and exhausting, does your body or brain say "stop" sometimes? Do you train by melting sports and brain games just like Kasparov did in the past?


NBV: It's true, it takes willpower and a lot of resistance to sustain the pace that I carry. To take care of my body, I am doing daily exercise for 60 to 90 minutes, including routines of strength, elasticity, speed and endurance. I also practice table tennis to preserve the agility of my body. I'm also divorced and I do not have a girlfriend... Hahaha


- By curiosity, do you consider playing Go in the future, even after... 2021? (which would surely be an enormous charge more, but the game is really interesting)


I have a kind of commitment with the best Colombian GO player, exchange of classes, he makes me a competitive player of GO and I turn him into a competitive player of backgammon. But the truth is that I do not have time... it could be after 2021...


- Do you confirm that you are not (entirely or partly) AlphaZero or any kind of A.I. (yet) ? :-)


NBV: Hahaha, of course I would like to be a real centaur, human with machine power, I do not care what physical form I should adopt. I offer myself publicly as a guinea pig in projects of technological singularity. Hahaha


- Many thanks for your detailed and instructive (impressive as well) answers! My best wishes of luck in all your games and future tournaments.


Scott Nichols    (2016-11-07 21:57:16)
Poker Poll

My idea was just a heads up match between 2 players who both feel they are the best:) No ratings, no money, everything just stays the same. The reason I offer this is because I'm 99% mathematically sure with this rating system, reaching 2400 would be next to impossible with everyone so much lower rated.

On the other hand, all I have to do is win a dozen or so games quickly and there it is. I feel it is an unfair advantage to me.


Robert Knighton    (2013-06-08 23:57:02)
Vacation: change for 3 days minimum?

I'm not creating a problem. I'm agreeing with a point of view already expressed by others on this forum and trying to clarify that point of view as I understand it.

Also, unless we are discussing the rules of mathematics for example, then pretty much all rules that exist are someone's opinion of how things should be right?

So what I understand you to be saying is that you want to be able to use vacation time to buy more time for your games and you believe this is acceptable behavior even if it gives you an advantage over other players who use their vacation time to go on vacation. It isn't called "performance boost time" or "buy a way out of a difficult position time"; it's called vacation time.

I think the topic here was started because there are a lot of people who disagree with you and believe vacation time is not intended to be used to buy an advantage against your more challenging opponents.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-10-15 12:58:54)
for 2013 poker tourneys

The idea is to have less time to finish a poker game, particularly when we play many moves a day... But mathematically the 1 move per day problem will probably remain :/

Don is right, the longest poker game so far here is more than 3300 moves (probably more than 500 hands), it can take a while to play it.


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-09-20 12:07:21)
Limit number of poker games

Don, I'm afraid that's mathematically wrong... compare 5 single games and a 5 games match (that counts for 1 game), a score of 4-1 does not have the same impact on ratings than a score of 1-0, the chancy factor is not the same. The aim of the whole thing was to have ratings not too close from each other, in other words significant (and I think they are).


Thibault de Vassal    (2012-02-27 02:22:02)
Folding in Poker

Well, mathematically poker ratings below about 1900 mean something of a different nature (level of course but also the number of games played) than ratings over 1900 because it is much easier to win points below 2000 (see rules) and it was even easier before february 2011, so it would be much easier after the change asked by Scott. A player who starts at 1600 will need to play more games than a player who starts at 1800 to reach 2000, but not necessarily to make more efforts. In addition there are ways to manage ratings to enter certain waiting lists more quickly. Also, considering the slow inflation that exists the contrary of what you say is true in a certain measure as well, new players will have to play more games than you to reach the top, actually the whole thing is really complex.

But... anyway I'll try not to change the rules again/too many times to avoid such (logical) reactions and that's why I take time to think about this one again.

I think that this change would make the poker ratings more attractive but less realistic and accurate so...... any other opinions? :)

Also, new players DO NOT get a free ride to the B class tournaments, many still start with 1600 according to the level they pretend when registering. So the difference is not so much, actually it may help you to climb the scale faster if you can beat a 1800 player easily... Really complex as I said but anyway I think that ratings are more accurate when players can start at different levels, because more players in the different categories mean more games in each one (players will find their rating faster) and because everybody do not lie every time. Everybody will not agree with this but I have a certain experience with the chess ratings now and I'm quite certain that most changes were good ones, so probably for poker.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-08-19 11:43:45)
Rybka banned from ICGA

Clone or not clone, I'm not sure if this question is worth something in computer chess but ICGA did it: Rybka was banned and stripped of titles...

I just partly read RybkaInvestigation document, a few points are particularly ridiculous (like 2.2 "Sudden Strength Increase"), I have no idea on the other ones and I'm not sure if this is really important in the real world.

Finally, the punishment:

- to strip Rajlich of all ICGA Tournament Titles and,
- force the return of trophies and prize funds to the ICGA and,
- ban his programs from future competitions until he can satisfy the ICGA that they are no longer derivatives and that he has satisfied the conditions of any other penalties the ICGA imposes.
- encourage other tournaments (Leiden, Paderborn, CCT, TACCL, etc.) to disallow the entry of Rybka until it is proven clean.


ICGA Panel Members

The Secretariat members:
Robert Hyatt - (Crafty, Cray Blitz, World Computer Chess Champion in 1983 and 1986)
Mark Lefler (author of Now)
Harvey Williamson (part of Hiarcs Team)
Panel members:
Albert Silver (software designer for Chess Assistant (1999-2002); currently editor of
Chessbase News (2010-present))
Amir Ban (author of Junior: World Champion 2002, 2004, 2006, World microcomputer
Champion 1997, 2001)
Charles Roberson (author of NoonianChess)
Christophe Theron (author of Chess Tiger)
Dariusz Czechowski (author of Darmenios)
Don Dailey (author of Cilkchess, Star Socrates, Rex, Komodo)
Eric Hallsworth (part of Hiarcs Team, Publisher of Selective Search magazine)
Fabien Letousky (author of Fruit)
Frederic Friedel (Chessbase.com)
Gerd Isenberg (author of IsiChess)
Gyula Horvath (author of Pandix, Brainstorm)
Ingo Bauer (Shredder team)
Jan Krabbenbos (Tournament Director of Leiden tournaments)
Kai Himstedt (author of Gridchess and Cluster Toga)
Ken Thompson (creator of Belle Chess Machine, World Computer Chess Champion
1980, Turing Award winner 1983, creator of B and C programming languages,
Unix and Plan 9 developer).
Marcel van Kervinck (author of Rookie)
Maciej Szmit (assistant professor at Technical University of Lodz)
Mark Watkins (MAGMA Computer Algebra Group, School of Mathematics and
Statistics, University of Sydney)
Mark Uniacke (Hiarcs, World Microcomputer Champion 1993)
Mincho Georgiev (Pawny)
Olivier Deville (Tournament Director of ChessWars)
Omid David (author of Falcon)
Peter Skinner (Tournament Director of CCT--the major annual online computer chess
tournament)
Ralf Schfer (author of Spike)
Richard Vida (author of Critter)
Richard Pijl (author of The Baron)
Stefan Meyer-Kahlen (author of Shredder, multiple world champions from 1996-2007)
Thomas Mayer (author of Quark)
Tord Romstad (author of Stockfish, Glaurung)
Tom Pronk (ProChess, Much)
Vladan Vuckovic (Axon, Achilles)
Wylie Garvin (game Programmer at Ubisoft Montreal)
Yngvi Bjrnsson (The Turk)
Zach Wegner (author of ZCT and Rondo, an upgraded version of Anthony Cozzies
Zappa program, which was world champion in 2005)
ICGA Board
President - David N.L. Levy
Vice-President: Yngvi Bjrnsson
Secretary-Treasurer: Hiroyuki Iida
Programmers Representative: Rmi Coulom
WCCC Tournament Director
Jaap van den Herik

http://www.chessvibes.com/plaatjes/rybkaevidence/RybkaInvestigation.pdf

http://www.chess.com/news/rybka-banned-and-stripped-of-titles-3798

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQshTNJ4pSM


Harshil Meraiya    (2011-04-26 05:42:10)
Active rating lists

And that is not only for chess! Go I had Zero. Now its 322 and provisional rating for people just joining-700! I don't need your stupid mathematical explanations. Just tell me how to delete account. And don't mail me ever!


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-04-24 12:03:10)
Active rating lists

Hello Harshil.

It is mathematical, actually. Your rating cannot reach 2000 if you play only class D tournaments (players rated 1400-1600), which is your case. By the way you played only 3 chess rated tournaments, that is still quite few...

High correspondence chess ratings take always 1 full year to be reached, every strong player knows that.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-03-05 13:43:30)
FICGS chess World Championship #9

There is no similar issue for 2000's IMHO, it is probably easier to cross the 2000-2100 barrier than the 2100-2200 and of course 2200-2300. And once again they would lose much less rating points against these new 2000 provisionally rated players (that's mathematical).

On provisional ratings depending on if players declare if an engine is used, even ICCF (as far as I know) grants a 2000 prov. rating to some players, I was not convinced so far but finally... Of course new players can "lie" or change their mind on using an engine, they'll not be kicked out of any tournament but such a rule is surely better than nothing to get ratings more coherent, btw it is just an improvement of the current rule (new players who have no rating anywhere can choose their first rating between 1200 & 1800, and of course I fix it if e.g. the player declares to play with an engine with a new rating of 1200).

Anyway the idea of players needing to have an established rating before being able to enter the WCH is also fine to me. Let's just try to have more opinions on this.


Thibault de Vassal    (2011-02-02 19:50:00)
Update for BigChess & Poker rating rules

Hi all, it was a long time there wasn't any update in rating rules.

First of all, as the number of results at Poker Holdem is quite high, I feel that a change should be tried so that ratings move less fast.

Case of a win (rating > 1999) : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40
Case of a win (rating < 2000) : New Rating = ((38 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 40

Case of a loss : New Rating = ((39 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 40

As for Big Chess, the ratings deflate because there isn't the same rule than in Poker or Advanced Chess, this is now fixed :

If there's a winner and if his rating is below 2000, his new rating his :

New Rating = ((18 x Current Rating) + (2 x Performance)) / 20

Otherwise :

New Rating = ((19 x Current Rating) + (1 x Performance)) / 20

This rule may look strange from a mathematical point of view, but combined to the other rules that provoke deflation, it gives really good results IMHO. Let's see how it works here.


Thibault de Vassal    (2010-03-31 20:24:34)
Poker dealing algorithm

It seems that I like to do everything by myself :)

The main difference (if I understood what I just read) is that this algorithm (e.g. Durstenfeld's algorithm) uses a different randomly generated number for each hand, so it is theorically possible to change the cards because there is no mathematical way to prove the cheating. With my algorithm, cards are pseudo-randomly generated but it is also possible to verify every card of every hand. And after all, even random functions are pseudo-random. (I hope that pseudo means the same in french & english)

Anyway, I'm curious and if someone knows a statistical way to know if an algorithm is good or not, I'll apply it to my method.


Scott Nichols    (2010-01-30 02:02:34)
Quote festival, part 6

Chess wasn't "solved", anymore than the mysteries of the universe are "solved". Obviously, Dave Daring doesn't play chess. All that happened was that a human lost to a computer at the game of chess. Did we think when calculators came out way back when, and could out calculate humans that mathematics was "solved"?


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-26 22:30:43)
re thib: from my other-thread post

from my post on the *other* 'draw offer' thread: (Thib youmised that one I think :))

<<Thib, you can read the great *french* mathematician A. Grothendieck's seminal algebraic-geometry work EGA - it is in french, of course ;)>>


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-25 06:12:32)
senility creeping up on me too, and..

Don, senility is creeping up on me too - whatever made me write Z[2+i*sqrt(5)] instead of Z[i*sqrt(5)]? - that is like writing 2 + 1/1 -1/1 without realising that that is 2 !

Thib, you can read the great *french* mathematician A. Grothendieck's seminal algebraic-geometry work EGA - it is in french, of course ;)


Normajean Yates    (2009-04-19 04:41:26)
But thibault, you already have them!

Thibault, you say: About rule 11.2 and this issue, the aim is [...] only to build accurate & understandable rules.

But, on this issue, you already *have* a very easily understandable rule - tick draw offer box and make move and send it (for making draw offer). That is very accurate and easy, isn't it. So what is the problem?

And in general, for rules of games, [except in mathematics :)] it is understood that what is not mentioned is not true (if the situation is such that this is expected by common use of language). For example, about move of the knight, we say that it moves fom one end to the diagonally opposite end of a 2x3 rectangle, and can jump over pieces while doing so. Since nothing else is mentioned about knight moves, it is understood that the knight cannot move legally except in this way. [In mathematics, we would have to explicitly say: 'the knight moves in the above way AND IN NO OTHER WAY.']




Gultekin Gumusyazici    (2008-12-30 17:18:11)
I am full concerned about it that

Chess is an Statistical game not mathematical. . As, However beautiful the strategy, you should occasionally look at the results. (Wind stone at Church hill) say. That is why bot players need statistical image databases.


Normajean Yates    (2008-11-02 02:36:49)
to Iouri Basiliev - extra tempo..

Loss of tempo? I claim that after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 the unique move that puts white into *zugzwang* is 2..f5!!. Disprove the statement mathematically if you can! :D


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-31 03:17:50)
replies to thibault's question..

1. No, computers cannot yet. Not even near. Afaik not even 'strongly conjectured to be a white win' or 'strongly conjectured draw' (3x3 chess has been strongly solved - it is not really a game because there is no suitable starting position - but there are complete tablebases for every legal placement of chess pieces on a 3x3 board. I posted the links in a forum thread a few months ago...)

2. Why this variant is special -

if you think about it, 5x5 chess is the smallest notrivial *natural* contraction of 8x8 chess.

Plus - or that is why - it was thought of many decades ago - as far as I remember, when Martin Gardner mentioned it about 25 years ago in his column 'mathematical games' in the USA-based science magazine 'Scientific American', he was merely mentioning it, he hadn't invented it...

I am waiting for one bigchess opponent to time out before going on 15-day chess-leave -- [she (Nicola) would have timed out on 27 Oct but it got extended because of the 7-day addition to clocks owing to server change] --- then I plan to find out the current state of 5x5 - whether some university etc. is researching it, etc. If there are results that indicate forced draw (or win) then I agree that there is not much point in doing it here...


Normajean Yates    (2008-10-29 18:23:20)
to Iouri Basiliev

But we agree with you! Only, it is not mathematically proven, and we do NOT hope to prove it, so we want to increase the likelihood that the statement is true :) Or, at least we want to reduce the margin of error [all in the Bayesian paradigm] Bayesian because - if you talk of conventional probability P rather than likelihood, then if P is the probability that the position after 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 f5 is a win for white, then either P=0 or P=1 [as chess is a complete information game], only we do not know whether P=0 or P=1.


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 19:59:07)
Poker

Your definition of "objective facts" is a bit weak, Repa. You state that I'm not intelligent enough to get my Chess rating higher yet I just told you I don't play Chess anymore. Besides that, my meager rating was achieved without the use of computers. One of the reasons I switched to Go is because Go is not yet dominated by computer programs. Why don't you try Go yourself and see how high a rating you can achieve without the aid of a computer? Also, in my second post, I agreed with you there is more to poker than just bluffing, etc. I said my comments were meant for players who already had mastered the mechanics and mathematics of the game. Rather than acknowledging this, you commenced with an ad hominem attack so typical of you. I stand by my original statement that the stakes in poker must be high enough to make bluffing possible or the game becomes nothing but chance where the best hand wins every pot. The best psychological game of poker is five-card draw with pot-limit and table-stakes. Playing with cards dealt face-up as in stud or hold-em (which is a form of 7-card stud) is for those who can't handle the uncertainty of not knowing for sure when they have a lock or at least that the odds are heavily in their favor.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 09:11:18)
Poker

As usual, Groves, you're returning to your trolling ways once again. You're the one who started with the personal attack here, not me. I simply stated that that there is more to poker than mere bluffing and money management, as you contended. You seriously don't know anything at all about the game of poker. That's not an attack, that's a fact. I was studying the value of inflection points and stack to pot ratios when you were struggling to learn the difference between a straight and a flush.

Just as you're a 1600 chess player, so you're showing your mediocrity where poker is concerned by grossly oversimplifying what the game is about. Saying that poker is more a game of psychology than math is hardly saying that all there is to poker is bluffing, as you repeatedly and mindlessly keep stating. For starters, bluffing is just one tool in a strong poker player's toolbox, and it is both a psychological, as well as a scientific/mathematical tool at that. In no limit poker, for example, sometimes a player will spend hours trying to create a certain image just to set up one single play in order to win a large pot. There are all kinds of relevant intangibles that are so far beyond your comprehension it's not funny.

And I really couldn't care less what you agree or disagree with. I know what I'm talking about. You don't. I have a proven track record over the last two decades as a winning player. I'd be surprised if you're not in the hole overall. And FYI, everything I've said is consistent with what guys like Greenstein, Skansky, Harrington, etc have been saying for years.

Do yourself a favour, Groves.....go read a poker book and learn some basics. Then perhaps you'll be able to make a contribution to a discussion about poker.


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 07:18:03)
Poker

As usual, Mr. Repa, you eventually turn every disagreement into a personal attack. I'm surprised you didn't mention how much higher your chess rating is than mine. You prove my point about bluffing when you say that poker is more a psychological game than a mathematical one. That is one thing we can agree on. Yes, I'm quite sure Barry Greenstein knows a bit more about the game than I do, and I'm just as sure he knows at least that much more about it than you.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-04 06:48:23)
Poker

"I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game"

Actually, you've just confirmed that you don't know anything at all about the game of poker. As is the case for you with chess. And you obviously didn't understand the expression "-EV" , so I'll explain it to you. EV means expected value. It is the sum of the probability of each possible outcome of the event multiplied by the outcome value (or payoff). Thus, it represents the average amount one "expects" as the outcome of the random trial when identical odds are repeated many times. Obviously if this value is a negative number, money-management is completely meaningless as you will lose money in the long run. Money management is actually the easiest thing to figure out. It's a no-brainer for anyone who knows anything about money gaming. It has to do with ensuring that you have enough cash on hand to keep the risk of ruin down to a comfortable level, to account for standard deviation (bad luck). If you're a losing poker player, ie, one in which the net result of all your decisions results in a negative expected value, money management is clearly totally meaningless. This simple concept is quite obvious to most people. I've never before met an adult who required it to be explained to them like this.

People who's minds go beyond the superficial understand that there is much more to poker than working out the simple arithmetic of the game, such as how many outs for a flush/straight.... pot odds, implied pot odds, etc, which is probably what you mean by "knowing the mechanics of the game". Playing that kind of mindless, one-dimensional game might work OK at microlimits, but beyond that you'll need to learn that poker is much more of a game of psychology than it is a game of math. A mathematician by the name of Barry Greenstein, who incidentally has won more than $10,000,000 playing poker, once said that also. I've got a feeling he knows a bit more about the game than you do, lol.


Don Groves    (2008-06-04 06:13:07)
Poker

--- Jason Repa wrote: "There's a bit more to the game than just knowing when to bluff. Poker is all about exploiting mistakes and minimizing both the frequency and magnitude of the mistakes that you make. Mistakes can take various forms, ranging from tells, to lack of or too much aggression, to letting your emotions get the better of you, making mathematical errors, etc." -------- I should have said my statement was about those who know the mechanics of the game. Once someone can play technically correct poker, as you would find in any high-level game, then bluffing and money management become paramount.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-03 08:06:37)
Poker

There's a bit more to the game than just knowing when to bluff. Poker is all about exploiting mistakes and minimizing both the frequency and magnitude of the mistakes that you make. Mistakes can take various forms, ranging from tells, to lack of or too much aggression, to letting your emotions get the better of you, making mathematical errors, etc.

Money management is meaningless if you're making -EV decisions.


Jason Repa    (2008-06-02 09:13:06)
Go game (weiqi) in films

An excellent movie called "Pi" that was written and directed by Darren Aronofsky features scenes in which a mathematical prodigy visits his former professor to discuss math and play Go.


Thibault de Vassal    (2008-03-15 12:43:07)
Unfought draws & rating calculation

An interesting article at Chessbase.com on unfought draws (mathematical, logical and practical considerations), also called "grandmaster draw" in the article, and ways to avoid it, by mathematician and logician Kung-Ming Tiong, Kota Kinabalu, Malaysia.

http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=4513

I notice that the main solution proposed just looks like FICGS rules for advanced chess (Performance +/- delta according to the color) :-D .. Anyway I still have to take some time to make this part of the server more attractive.

This thread may be a good place to ask for a feedback about FICGS current rating rules (for both chess & Go), what do you think ? :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-17 05:35:42)
To tie or not to tie

Hi Gino !

"I'm in advantage from the start given the tournament rules" : Untrue IMO, according to the current situation (not all games are draw), if the match ends at tie, you'll lose it - at least qualification - in all cases ;)

In 8-games matches, like every WC round-robin tournament, fighting for the score and (&&) for ratings looks quite normal, there's no dishonor to tie, winning or losing the right to move to the next round. Definitely rules have something to do with honor, at least with victory. Is there no honor to win a chess game with White pieces and its small advantage ?

What about ICCF WC tournaments and Sonnenborn-Berger ? .. Somewhat more complex, but ratings decide according to the situation also. What about FIDE World Championship ? .. Did Kramnik win his title / tie his match against Leko without honor ? .. FICGS rules are not more unfair than FIDE WCH ones, I'm playing an 8-games match against Farit Balabaev, his strategy is clearly to draw the 8 games and it may work, there's no dishonor in it, only good strategy IMHO.

But, of course, that's more a question of human feeling than mathematics, so only my point of view :)


Thibault de Vassal    (2007-09-10 22:42:32)
chess engines

First of all, every chess engines is a choice, ie. about selectivity, and has consequences & weaknesses in particular positions. Fruit/Toga algorithm is really good but it has probably still much less chess knowledge than Rybka. I think Rybka's algorithm is really better also, Vasik Rajlich added some "human features" while other programs still think about chess like mathematics.

Rybka changed correspondence chess because Fritz or Junior (very strong chess machines) added to a good chess player makes a good centaur while Rybka is "almost" a centaur itself... Consequently a weak chess player can reach quite easily a 2100/2200 rating. That's the main reason...

Of course Rybka will always make some bad moves, but it/she builds an advantage move after move against other engines in most cases in 'calm' positions. HIARCS, that was told during a long time to think most like a human, was not a strong 'chess machine'. I don't know much about Hiarcs 11/12, but Rybka is a major improvement in this way IMO.


Mladen Jankovic    (2007-08-03 17:59:45)
Algorithm

It provides the algorithm for best play in any position.

An ultra-weak solution is not really a solution, it's only a proof that a solution exists and what properties it must have (draw, first player win most commonly). Such solutions tend involve the strategy stealing argument.

It is essentially proving a mathematical theorem.


Nick Burrows    (2007-07-15 20:57:58)
IQ vs Multple Intelligence

I believe that autistic savants or chess geniuses such as Fisher have an exremely advanced logical-mathematical intelligence, often to the detriment of other skills and forms of intelligence
I believe that great human beings who positively affect the lives of millions - such as Gandi - have a morerounded intelligence, rather than one that is exclusively focused in one narrow field.


Nick Burrows    (2007-07-15 20:29:03)
IQ vs Multple Intelligence

Are there other forms of intellingence independant of having a high IQ? Or are they simply 'skills'?
How about...
1. Linguistic intelligence involving sensitivity to spoken and written language, the ability to learn languages, and the capacity to use language to accomplish certain goals. This intelligence includes the ability to effectively use language to express oneself rhetorically or poetically; and language as a means to remember information. Writers, poets, lawyers and speakers are among those that
2. Logical-mathematical intelligence consisting of the capacity to analyze problems logically, carry out mathematical operations, and investigate issues scientifically. This entails the ability to detect patterns, reason deductively and think logically. This intelligence is most often associated with scientific and mathematical thinking.
3. Musical intelligence involving skill in the performance, composition, and appreciation of musical patterns. It encompasses the capacity to recognize and compose musical pitches, tones, and rhythms.
4. Bodily-kinesthetic intelligence entailing the potential of using one's whole body or parts of the body to solve problems. It is the ability to use mental abilities to coordinate bodily movements.
5. Spatial intelligence involving the potential to recognize and use the patterns of wide space and more confined areas.
6. Interpersonal intelligence is concerned with the capacity to understand the intentions, motivations and desires of other people. It allows people to work effectively with others. Educators, salespeople, religious and political leaders and counsellors all need a well-developed interpersonal intelligence.
7. Intrapersonal intelligence entails the capacity to understand oneself, to appreciate one's feelings, fears and motivations.


Garvin Gray    (2007-06-04 11:41:42)
Wch 3 in rating order


KAZ Balabaev, Farit 2580

FRA de Vassal, Thibault 2512

USA Ingersol, Harry 2502

NZL Noble, Mark 2497

DEU Schuster, Peter 2480

POL Ostrowski, Leszek 2458

ARG Brunsteins, Daniel 2452

CAN Zubac, Marius 2415

ROU Mathe, Iosif 2414

UKR Khokhlov, Igor 2370

MLT Sammut, Ronald 2362

ROU Helmer, Janos 2343

PRT Pires, Miguel 2270

LKA De Silva, Dinesh 2235

POL Sanner, Zdzislaw 2219

RUS Dyakov, Alexander 2217

DEU Schiller, Wilfried 2217

DEU Koslowski, Volker 2204

DZA Ould Ahmed, Samy 2195

FRA Appendino, Jrome 2192

GBR Taylor, William 2182

GRC Bleker, Frits 2171

DNK Jorgensen, Poulerik 2168

DEU Kesselheim, Peter 2149

CAN Repa, Jason 2144

PRT Louro, Eugnio 2123

USA Kotlyansky, Edward 2114

DEU Markus, Roland 2103

FRA Czekaj, Christophe 2098

AUT Dudulec, Konstantin 2084

CAN Plante, Marc-Eric 2079

LVA Borisovs, Leonids 2078

AUT Mueller, Robert 2069

DEU Unger, Peter 2065

AUT Riha, Josef 2019

POL Skwarczylo, Marek 2018

MUS Stephenson, Andrew 2000

CZE Stanislav, Musil 1990

SCG Vidanovic, Djordje 1966

USA Burden, Don 1959

DEU Haluschka, Rainer 1950

CAN Rotaru, Dan 1937

GBR Wyborn, Graham 1890

GBR Burrows, Nick 1884

POL Broniek, Mariusz Maciej 1879

BIH Dautovic, Dzenan 1875

AUS Gray, Garvin 1863

USA Minkin, Alexander 1850

GBR Josse, Mark 1806

ARM Khachaturov, Vadim 1803

USA Kotlyanskiy, Ilya 1800

DEU Krueger, Karsten 1800

PRT Vasquez, Fernando 1775

DZA Toutaoui, Khaled 1763

DEU Wosch, Arkadiusz 1746

TUR Yuvarlak, Ugur 1732

ROU Hrubaru, Mircea 1726

ARG Carrizo, Jos 1724

USA Phillip, Lennox 1700

ROU Kondort, Mihai 1700

ROU Ioan, Bucsa 1700

BRA Miranda, Marcus 1691

VEN Flores, Luis 1680

RUS Ruzin, Mikhail 1639

DEU Faust, Dieter 1627

MYS Behrmann, Klaus 1617

FRA Bellanger, Michel 1606

POL Bester, Kazimierz 1600

DEU Nent, Alexander 1593

PRT Oliveira, Carlos 1586

HUN Nagy, Attila 1549

ROU Ionescu, Catalin 1535

HUN Kis-Kos, Laszlo 1512

ITA Lupinacci, Nicola 1492

BEL De Groof, Pieter 1465

DEU Odendahl, Marcel 1462

USA Hendricks, Richard 1459

BRA Queiroz, Florencio 1444

CZE Pech, Jaroslav 1433

USA Goodwin, Adam 1415

HUN Csoma, Robert 1400

USA Gillz, Nicolas 1400

BGR Toktas, Ibrahim Ugras 1400

IND Veeraiah, Karuppaiah 1400

MEX Ortiz Durn, Esteban 1400

TUR Ilhan, Alper 1400

CHE Margot, Alain 1400

TUR Erdonho, Erdin 1400

USA Lipsits, Sasha 1400

BRA B. Lima, Edmilson 1400

DEU von Buttlar, Paul 1386

HUN Fenyves, Adam 1330

BGR Stoianov, Stoian 1316

GRC Serd, Than 1300

TUR Ak, Murat 1300

GBR Willoughby, Peter 1294

ARG Orden, Jorge 1264

GBR Neil, Charlie 1212

NLD Oldenhof, Dwight 1203

USA Greer, Stephen 1200

BRA Barradas, Anderson 1194

IND Malvankar, Vikrant 1188

BEL Tuteleers, Bruno 1145

DEU Bothe, Matthias 1143

BGR Stoyanov, Zdravko 1136



Don Groves    (2007-03-21 02:24:38)
chaos and order

Yes, I'm familiar with chaos theory and fractals but are not these examples of how our rational minds (and our mathematics) impose order on whatever we see?


Nick Burrows    (2007-03-21 01:20:27)
*Go to Pi*

The film Pi is about a mathmetician who is using chaos theory to find a pattern within the stock market. His obsession leads him to observe the mathematical structures underpinning the whole of nature - eg spiral shells.
He visits his old maths teacher. They play Go together. The teacher explains that the ancient chinese saw the Go board as representing the whole universe, and so Go is used as a metaphor to understand chaos theory.
Starting with a very simple set of rules structures of untold complexity can form, systems such as the weather are so complex that they appear to be 'chaotic' or random. Go shows us that although it is too complex to see a game to its end, or understand the whole structure, there is logic or order within the chaos. It is just beyond our humble human limitations to understand it fully.
Go and chess intrigue us because in revealing the hidden truth within a chaotic structure, we are understanding a wider truth of order behind ALL phenomenon in the universe. Peace.


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-11-03 12:03:47)
temps de rflexion

Bonjour Henri-Louis.

Disons les choses... Ceci est clairement un sujet sans fin et sans solution, discut sur les forums d'checs par correspondance (ICCF, IECG etc...) depuis leur cration. C'est mathmatique, le problme est n de la lenteur de certaines cadences (40 jours + 40 jours / 10 coups), d'o le choix d'une cadence de 30 jours + 1 jour / coup pour les tournois rapides, peu demands haut niveau, et le championnat.

Et comme le dirait un certain Dominique de Villepin, j'entends ceux qui se plaignent, mais j'entends galement ceux qui ne se plaignent pas :) ... J'ai lanc un fil il y a quelques semaines sur les temps de rflexion, les seules rponses que j'ai eues taient claires : "Ne changez rien !" .. Tous les joueurs n'ont pas les mmes dispositions de temps pour jouer aux checs par correspondance, j'ai simplement mis en place la formule qui mon avis peut convenir au plus grand nombre.. Pour certains, les cadences lentes sont trop rapides (je ne blague pas), pour d'autres les cadences rapides sont trop lentes... A cela je n'ai pas de solution raisonnable, je suis peu prs certain qu'aucune amlioration sensible ne peut tre apporte dans un sens ou l'autre sans que beaucoup de joueurs ne s'en plaignent... La rgle des 60 jours ne s'applique en gnral qu' ceux qui abandonnent leurs parties et qui n'en tirent donc aucun avantage. Pour les autres, si la limite tait fixe 30 jours, cela ne changerait rien, avec un coup jou tous les 30 jours pour faire "durer", le temps total de la partie serait le mme...

Le nombre de plaintes est trs faible pour plus de 4000 parties arbitres. A moins d'une meilleure ide qui satisferait tout le monde, je pense qu'il faut laisser les choses en l'tat.

Amicalement, Thibault.


Rodrigo Jaroszewski    (2006-09-12 13:19:57)
Math... *sigh*

LOL Thibault, I guess it was.

I'm no mathematician (far from it), but I don't think that this theory will turn out to be true anytime in the near future, even in a "predictable" game like chess. Even chess engines depend on the skill of their programmers to find new ways to make their search algorithms become reliable and faster, and tablebase development is still petabytes away from being complete.

Anyway, I guess the future generations will have to tell us if it worked or not. Only God knows what can get in the way of this "gaming nirvana" as they call, and after I heard that it was proven possible that a computer user can subconciously influenciate the way an idle machine performs, I don't feel like trying to impersonate Baba Vanga on this subject! ;)


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-09-08 18:10:52)
Chess tournament : Zero-sum or not ?

While discussing about Sun Tzu's "The Art of War", and the question "Is the best player always the champion ?" (of course not IMO) , I was argued that any chess tournament "was" (actually could be "reduced to") a zero-sum game :

"In 1944 John von Neumann and Oskar Morgenstern proved that any zero-sum game involving n players is in fact a generalised form of a zero-sum game for two persons, and that any non-zero-sum game for n players can be reduced to a zero-sum game for n + 1 players; the (n + 1) player representing the global profit or loss. This suggests that the zero-sum game for two players forms the essential core of mathematical game theory."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero_sum_game

It seems to me that it's out of topic, but I couldn't say exactly why... In my opinion, a tournament is nearer life than game, at least quite far from it. Much more rules, often complex ones, and results that depend on many parameters you couldn't influence...

The word "champion" depends on accurate rules (the best player could finish 2nd, even if he wins all games ie. in an open tournament..), the "best player" depends on general opinion (most commonly through ratings), ie. Topalov vs. Kasparov ...

What do you think ? :-)


Where the discussion started from :

http://www.gamasutra.com/features/20060907/sirlin_01.shtml

I agree with many points about how to win, but the use of some words seems to be dubious...

I like much this quote :

"I was surprised to see that Capablanca did not initiate any active maneuvers and instead adopted a waiting game. In the end, his opponent made an imprecise move; the Cuban won a second pawn and soon the game. Why didnt you try to convert your material advantage straight away? I ventured to ask the great chess virtuoso. He smiled indulgently. It was more practical to wait. "

Mikhail Botvinnik, 6th World Chess Champion


Thibault de Vassal    (2006-07-20 05:51:19)
Bug fixed

Eh bien non, ce n'tait pas un pirate mais un simple hasard improbable dans un ocan de mathmatiques... Le bug est corrig. Merci pour le retour !


Amir Bagheri    (2006-06-23 12:25:36)
Blindfolded Chess

THE chess-world (for there is a "world" in chess as in other matters) has lately been startled by a very extraordinary performance at one of the "divans" of the metropolis. A young American has played ten games at once, against an equal number of players, without, on his part, obtaining a single glimpse at any one of the chess-boards. The feat is not new; but never before was it performed so triumphantly as in the present day. The writers who have ferreted out the early history of this beautiful game have found the name of one Tchelebi, who, nearly nine centuries ago, was able to play at chess without seeing the board. Many persons in the East acquired the art of playing by feeling instead of seeing pieces; but that is a very different affair, since in such a case the sense of touch comes in aid of the memory. In 1266, a Saragen, named Buzecca, came to Florence and at the Palazzo del Popolo played three games at once, looking at one board, but not at the other two. He won two of the games, and made a drawn or abandoned game of the other. As all his competitors were skilful players, his achievement caused irrepressible astonishment. At various times, in later centuries, this mode of play was exhibited by different persons--Ruy Lopez, the author of one of the earliest treatises on chess; Mangiolini of Florence, Zerone, Medrano, Leonardo da Cutri, Paolo Boi, Salvio, and others, many of whom were Spaniards. Boi is reputed to have played three games at once without seeing the board. Damiano, an Italian, who wrote a treatise on chess more than three centuries and a half ago, gave what he called the "Rules" for learning to play without seeing the board; but his rules are worth very little, amounting chiefly to a recommendation to cultivate the memory. Keysler, in his Account of Turin (1749), says: "The late Father Sacchieri, Lecturer on Mathematics at Pavia, was a remarkable instance of the strength of the human understanding, particularly that faculty of the soul we term memory. He could play at chess with three different persons at the same time, even without seeing any one of the three chess-boards. He required no more than that his substitute should tell him what piece his antagonist had moved, and Sacchieri could direct what step was to be taken on his side, holding, at the same time, conversation with the company present. If any dispute arose about the place where any piece should be, he could tell every move that had been made, not only by himself, but by his antagonist, from the beginning of the game, and in this manner incontestably decided the proper place of the piece. This uncommon dexterity at the game of chess appears to me almost the greatest instance that can be produced of a surprising memory." The most celebrated player of the last century, however, in this peculiar achievement, was the Frenchman Andre Danican, who then, and afterwards, was generally known by the name of Philidor. In 1743, when Philidor was about eighteen years old, M. de Legalle asked him whether he had ever tried to play from memory, without seeing the board. The youth replied, that as had calculated moves, and even whole games, at night in bed, he thought he could do it. He immediately played a game with the Abbe Chenard, which he won without seeing the board. After that, a little practice enabled him to play nearly as well in this as in the ordinary fashion--sometimes two games at once. The French Cyclopedie told of a particular game in which a false move was purposely made by his antagonist; Philidor discovered it after many moves, and replaced the pieces in their proper position. Forty years afterwards, he was residing in England, where he astonished English players by his blindfold achievements at a chess-club in St. James' Street. He played three games at once, with Count Bruhl, Mr. Bowdler, and Mr. Maseres, the first two of whom were reputed the best players at that time in England. Philidor won two of the games, and drew the third, all within two hours. On another occasion, in the same year (1788), he played three games at once, blindfold as before, and giving the odds of pawn and move to one of his antagonists; again did he win two of the games, and draw the third. His demeanor during these labors surprised his visitors as much as his skill, for he kept up a lively conversation during his games. Many eminent chess-players, including M'Donnell, La Bourdonnaye, Staunton, etc., have achieved these blindfold wonders, in greater or less degree, since the days of Philidor. M'Donnell, a famous player about thirty years ago, played his moves even more rapidly without than with the board; he did not object to any amount of conversation in the room during his play, but disliked whispers. La Bourdonnaye could play within a shade of his full strength without seeing the board; he won against good players, on some occasions two at a time; but when trying the threefold labor, his brain nearly gave way, and he wisely abandoned all such modes of playing his favorite game. Mr. Staunton, the leading English player at present (but who has almost ceased to play since he undertook the editing of an edition of Shakespeare), some years ago played many blindfold games with Harrwitz and Kieseritzky, foreign players of note.




There are 0 results for Mathe in wikichess.











 		 
 
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 !


Riccio, Eros     (ITA)        [member # 186]

Correspondence chess : 2475       GM

Ranked  #  38   in the rating list.

Rating history :  No change this year.



Advanced chess :   2443      

Eros Riccio




This member may have a profile in the social network.




FICGS Go server, weiqi baduk banner facebook      
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

       FICGS correspondence chess banner facebook