 |
| Home |
| Informations |
| Login |
| Register |
| Waiting lists |
| Membership |
| Hall of fame |
| Tournaments |
| Best game |
| Wikichess |
| Rating list |
| Problems |
| Forum |
| Links |
| Help |
| About |
|
Game result (chess) S. Nichols, 2036 J. Riha, 1932 0-1 See game 26119 |
|
Deep Fritz 11 is available (Chessbase.com) Dominguez-Perez wins World Blitz Championship Hikaru Nakamura wins Cap d'Agde tournament Viswanathan Anand is FIDE world champion 2008 Nigel Short wins Commonwealth Championship Rybka wins World Computer Chess Championship 2008 Topalov tops the October 2008 FIDE rating list Pentala Harikrishna wins Spice Cup in Lubbock GM Jan Werle wins EU Individual Championships Alexandra Kosteniuk is Women's World Champion 2008 more chess news... |
|
Andy Liu 7d wins Masters Open at NY Go Center Gu Li 9p wins the 10th Chinese Agon Cup Hugh Zhang 6d wins Ing's Cup Youth Go Tournament Zou Jin 6d wins Pandanet Go European Cup I-Han Lui 7d wins UMBC tournament more Go news... |
|
In the forum... Money games... Moneybookers, Paypal, credit card and bank transfer are available to play money games... Affiliate links... Win E-Points by linking to us as an affiliate, for each new member referred by your link, 1 E-Point will be added to your account... E-Points prizes... Ficgs now offers free games & tournaments with E-Points prizes... Rybka 3, Fritz 12... Rybka 3, Fritz 12, Hiarcs 13, your predictions on forthcoming chess engines... Translators... Translators are needed for chinese, japanese, indian, romanian, polish home pages... Vacation help... Hello all, I've entered a vacation time in error. Is it possible to cancel the vacation ? |
|
Last referers : SCHACHCOMPUTER XMP CHESSGAMESLINKS LIVE ORKUT WIKIPEDIA YAHOO D CHESSPRAGA |
|
Feel free to link to this page to get referer backlinks to your website ! |
Want your banner here ? |
There are 152 results for Nent Alexander in the games.
Game_7013 Game_6774 Game_6779 Game_6783 Game_6786 Game_6789 Game_6790 Game_7019 Game_7020 Game_7021 Game_7022 Game_7023 Game_8563 Game_8568 Game_8573 Game_8574 Game_8575 Game_8576 Game_8986 Game_8991 Game_8995 Game_8998 Game_9000 Game_9002 Game_10625 Game_10630 Game_10634 Game_10637 Game_10639 Game_10641 Game_10646 Game_10651 Game_10655 Game_10658 Game_10660 Game_10662 Game_10709 Game_10714 Game_10718 Game_10721 Game_10723 Game_10725 Game_12011 Game_12012 Game_12810 Game_12817 Game_12823 Game_12828 Game_12832 Game_12836 Game_12837 Game_12838 Game_13462 Game_13467 Game_13471 Game_13475 Game_13476 Game_13477 Game_13710 Game_13715 Game_13719 Game_13722 Game_13725 Game_13726 Game_14439 Game_14444 Game_14448 Game_14451 Game_14453 Game_14455 Game_16477 Game_15803 Game_15808 Game_15812 Game_15815 Game_15818 Game_15819 Game_15865 Game_15870 Game_15874 Game_15878 Game_15879 Game_15880 Game_16476 Game_16394 Game_16399 Game_16403 Game_16407 Game_16408 Game_16409 Game_16478 Game_16479 Game_16480 Game_16481 Game_16692 Game_16697 Game_16701 Game_16704 Game_16706 Game_16707 Game_17437 Game_17444 Game_17451 Game_17452 Game_17453 Game_17454 Game_17455 Game_17456 Game_18799 Game_18804 Game_18808 Game_18811 Game_18813 Game_18814 Game_18820 Game_18825 Game_18829 Game_18832 Game_18834 Game_18836 Game_21271 Game_21396 Game_21398 Game_21023 Game_21269 Game_21028 Game_21032 Game_21035 Game_21038 Game_21039 Game_21259 Game_21399 Game_21270 Game_21264 Game_21395 Game_21389 Game_21397 Game_21272 Game_21635 Game_21641 Game_21642 Game_21643 Game_21644 Game_21645 Game_22284 Game_22291 Game_22298 Game_22299 Game_22300 Game_22301 Game_22302 Game_22303
There are 422 results for Nent in the forum.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-08 14:49:23)
FICGS titles
As you may have read on TCCMB forum, ICCF officials reacted when they learnt about FICGS titles. My idea was it first to be informative (titles from ICCF/IECG/FIDE), because I think players like to know who they play against, particularly if their opponents are titled. It seems obvious to me that FICGS titles are FICGS ones, not "official", not ICCF or FIDE.. even if words are quite the same (titles are FICGS IM, not IM).
I would like to know what you think about that. Do you think FICGS titles should be renamed (ie. FEM, FIM, FSM, FGM), or do you think there's no possible confusion between FIDE/ICCF/IECG/FICGS titles ? This is an interesting debate I invite you to follow :
http://pub11.bravenet.com/forum/924995304/fetch/552912/
Thank you for your advices.
Walter Rattay (2006-04-14 22:01:49)
Last moves and coordinates on board
When opening our games, the game boards do not show the last moves. We have to scroll down to learn our opponent's move, then scroll back to view the board. Also, because there are no coordinates on the board, we are more likely to make a mistake, especially when playing black.
Håkon Anda (2006-04-16 12:14:19)
Re: Some wishes
Hello Thibault. You wrote: "1. Maybe try : Preferences -> Notification checkbox". The problem is that when uncheck this box, one loose also opponents moves with e-mail notification. I wish to get e-mail notification with oppononets moves, but not my own moves.
Henri Muller (2006-04-16 18:11:51)
tournament formules
personnellement je préfère de loin 10 coups/40 jours. Ne changez rien, c'est parfait....sinon certaines parties (perdues ) "trainent" lamentablement !!
Patrice Verdier (2006-04-17 23:09:08)
Holidays
I inform all my opponents in my tournament CLASS - M - 00002 that I am in holidays from 17/04 to 22/04 Thanks
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-18 21:39:57)
A Suggestion
Thibault my e-mail notification will be turned off :)
I'd encourage you to re-consider your 60 day ruling. I can foresee individuals getting late in a game and accumulating hundreds of reflection days. Not many, but a few players could go 59 days per move 2 or 3 times in a row just to irritate their opponent. Not everyone is a "good sport" unfortunately :(
IECG does it right by limiting time to 30 days max per move. You violate the limit once, game is over no questions asked. ICCF does it half right and half wrong. They set the limit at 40 days, but then make the person waiting beg the TD to do something. If the TD refuses to enforce the rule, the violating player can stall as long as he wants :(
This is your chance to pick and chose from the best things done in other organizations. Either set a limit on the number of accumulated days so it doesn't go into the hundreds or set a reasonable limit on the number of days per move. Just don't let both become large. Also don't be wishy washy on the limit. Set a limit and enforce it, no questions asked. No hard reasonable limit and too many accumulated days is an infrequent, but irritating problem in the making. There won't be many, but sadly there will be those few "bad losers" who think it's "cute" to string their opponents along. Don't let that happen at FICGS!
Just my two cents :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-19 19:13:56)
Vacation implemented
Dear chessfriends, a major update on FICGS : Vacation has been implemented. You now have 30 days leave per year (for all games !)
Be careful using it, as days can't be took back (or vacation stopped before the end date) by playing a move for example. But you can add days to your vacation simply taking days more. You can play while you're in vacation, the days leave you take are simply added to your clock for all your running games. A message tells your opponent you're in vacation in the viewer page.
Also please note this new rule : Time accumulated is now limited to 100 days ! (taking effect at your next move) The 60 days limit per move is kept for the player's convenience.
Have good games !
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-23 12:33:40)
Checkmate / Stalemate
Note : Checkmate and stalemate are not automatically converted as a win or draw, your opponent has to resign or accept draw before.. I thought it was a more friendy way, and you have the possibility to send a last message with your move.
Michael Höppenstein (2006-04-24 06:42:14)
Michael Höppenstein
What will happen, if my opponent won't resign after a checkmate?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-04-24 07:33:39)
Referee
You can call referee after a while. Anyway your opponent will loose on time before the one move time limit.
Michael Höppenstein (2006-04-24 15:45:19)
Referee - Checkmate
That's not quite all right, I think. In case a game is won by checkmate, the game should be over - that is: without referee and without me waiting for my opponent losing on time. Would you consider changing this? Just a suggestions.
Michael Höppenstein (2006-04-24 18:13:20)
Checkmate
I think I was one of those payers. I won the game a few days ago but my opponent has not as yet resigned the game.
Graham Wyborn (2006-04-25 13:13:52)
Condition Moves?
I have played on another site which uses conditional moves. The Conditional Move is only operated after you opponent moves, therefore you are unaware of your opponents offer. Also players can turn the feature on or off. So if one player has it turned off, the opponent cannot use it. Conditional moves are good time savers. especially when making a capture and the opponent has only one good reply. It saves time. Hope Conditional Moves are coming to this site too!
Graham Cridland (2006-04-25 16:02:04)
Weird
I'd suggest allowing one player to use them even if the opponent has them turned off, as otherwise it could get confusing... people might not ralize their move hadn't been executed.
Glen D. Shields (2006-04-25 16:48:28)
Another Opinion
I have mixed feelings on 'conditional" moves. I agree they save time, but they also can be irritating. Depends how they're sent and who sends them.
We all have those opponents who play whatever Fritz plays. When one gets in a rather simple series of moves, those opponents like to run out a string of 3 or 4 conditionals in a row. Opponents like that are like leeches. You can't get them off your skin without yanking them off and eradicating them :)
Time saving versus irritation. Considering the options, I vote for time saving. The faster I can get rid of Fritz opponents, the happier I am.
Just another opinion :)
Michael Höppenstein (2006-04-25 17:15:18)
Opponent does not resign after checkmate
The bug might be fixed but my opponent won't resign. Do I really have to wait 48 days - I've just checked - till he forfeits on time? How do I make him resign?
Graham Cridland (2006-04-25 17:22:16)
Hmm.
Well, I see your point (I have an opponent like that) but what you're really objecting to is their failure to use their time, not conditional moves (or even fritz). And I can't imagine that forcing people to use their time will be popular. Just have to NOT send the move back right away, sit down at the board, and figure out where Fritz goes wrong. Our German friend isn't all knowing (especially at the 14-16 ply people only give him much of the time). So you should generally win those games.
Graham Wyborn (2006-04-25 17:42:52)
Please join:-
I joined this site recently and still have not started a game! Forgive the advert 4 the following games. We need one more player! FICGS__CHESS__CLASS_C__000002 (type : rated round-robin, time : 40 days, increment : 40 days / 10 moves) 7 players, 6 game (1 game against each opponent) elo : 1600-2000 Cridland, Graham (USA) 1700 Grady, Richard (USA) 1654 Höppenstein, Michael (DEU) 1700 Fillion, Nicolas (CAN) 1640 Wyborn, Graham (GBR) 1700 Muller, Henri-Louis (BEL) 1923
Graham Wyborn (2006-04-25 23:29:20)
Yawn........... Yawn............Yawn
Still no game. Anyone know the song, "Why are we waiting". As 6 out of the 7 have joined, could not some of the games start. We are all not going to this opponent! Just a thought......
Trent Parker (2006-05-08 01:19:43)
re: Mate
Hello Konstantin! your opponent has to resign. Hey Thibault. Could i suggest that you send a message to everyone in regards to this issue? I suspect that quite a lot of people do not read these forums regularly. Just a thought. Cheers, Trent Parker
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-08 04:38:51)
F.A.Q.
Hello Konstantin. As Trent said, your opponent has to resign. Please take a look at this thread : http://www.ficgs.com/forum_read_185.html
I'll make a F.A.Q. very soon.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-05-14 17:29:59)
Swiss and Blitz Cup
Hello Thibault
Swiss tournament was only a suggestion. I don't like knockout tournaments - too many rounds (7 if 128 players want to play), great problems, if not the right number of players is available or players withdraw. If you have only 30 days for the whole game, it is much better to live on the "right" continent relative to your opponent.
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-17 08:41:06)
overall evaluation of this new site
This mate problem on this site is a big problem. Only chess site I play on where you have won and it is not won until the player resigns. Secondly I am in a game where mate is in 2. but my opponent has stopped playing. Many others are reporting the same thing. The idea is nice, it assumes that all players are good sports. Over all I would say many players here are not considerate of their opponents, and it is a reflection of their charachter. I dont think to much of the moderaters or those who are responsible and have taken a no action stance despite many complaints. Moderator or responsible authority take care of this ridiculous policy Regards Wayne
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-17 20:44:05)
Delay before adjudication request
About the game you request for adjudication, Wayne... I see you played your last move 2 days ago. It's a bit early... Please wait about a ten days before calling referee, even if your opponent takes 5 days for each move... This is correspondence chess... and we have time :) In email games (with the same time) such situations may take much more time... Be patient ! It doesn't prevent you to enter a new tournament, and next rating calculation won't occur before july.
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-18 00:53:27)
Mate Problem Should be Fixed
Thibault - Since I am never at a loss to voice an opinion , I'll go ahead and voice one here :)
I don't know how much work it is for you to fix the mate problem, but I think it should be fixed. I admit in the 1000+ correspondence games I've played through the years very few games actually get to the checkmate move. When they do, the game should be over. There is no reason one should have to beg his opponent to resign or beg the referee to do something. That doesn't make any sense. Is it a HUGE problem to fix this? I'm perplexed.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-18 03:18:57)
Let's see...
Hello Glen.
This is quite unusual and it may look strange at the first sight, but I still think that this rule is positive and is not a nonsense !
That's true I prefer the server working this way, and it saves time process, but I keep in mind : First, this is friendly... 2nd, if a player want to last a game, he will do it before being checkmated. 3rd, I didn't adjudicate Wayne's game, and his opponent just resigned only 2 days after his move. Let's give a chance to this rule, I'm convinced time will show that it is not a nonsense ;)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-19 02:15:13)
Amici sumus
Hello Wayne. I agree, of course, your game was won. Here the problem is not the checkmate rule, it is about the adjudication of a forced win or draw ! Clearly, there's no perfect solution. There will be some abuses, more or less important ! One can't prevent this... Rules (particularly time rules) mean abuses. But don't forget that if a player abuses, it doesn't mean all players do the same intentionally in such a situation. I don't know if your opponent really stopped to play... (what for ? .. you'll get the point anyway) Maybe he just had other things to do these days... Who knows ? Even if this is not the case, it could have been ! It is the same problem (in the forced mate case) everywhere, there's simply nothing else to do than wait, then call referee when a time limit is reached. There's no other reasonable rule ! (and it would be too much work for referees)
Understand me, I don't say it was not an abuse, I just say there's no solution. If I change the rule, there will be abuses in another way ! There will be abuses anyway... Nevertheless, if you have an idea, I'll read it with interest.
Respectfully.
Glen D. Shields (2006-05-19 03:40:33)
I See Two Issues
Perhaps I miss something, but I see two separate issues here. One issue is technical, the other is chess etiquette.
The inability of the server to recognize that a game is over when one player is checkmated is a technical issue that should be fixed (in my opinion). No resignation should be necessary to end the game.
The chess etiquette issue is different. I agree it is rude for a player to drag out an obviously lost game. Despite the bad behavior, I think it is the individual's right to continue to fight to the bitter end. We might not like it, but that's just part of the game. I never played in any correspondence or over-the-board club where a player's decision to resign was determined by his opponent or the referee.
Trent Parker (2006-05-19 08:04:48)
My Overall evaluation of this new site
I really like this site. I like the format of the tournaments, I like the fact that the number of games one can play are not limited.
I like the idea of the best game function, however i do not think it is properly utilised (I have aired my ideas on this elsewhere....)
I personally think the resign for checkmate rule is ok, although none of my games have gotten that far yet. After all a) this does not limit the amount of games that you can play on this site and b) your opponent will run out of time anyhow. So what is the difference? You are going to get the point anyhow.
I have the following criticisms:
I am on Dial up. This site is very slow to play on, very time consuming with the amount of games that i am up to. would it be possible to... I dunno... make it like a javascript or something, just to speed it up a bit. Or perhaps even make the submit button further up the page a bit? Often i have gone out of a game thinking that i have made the move when i have forgotten to click the submit button. (By the way this site would be excellent if i had broadband but i don't.)
I may have some more comments later on but at the moment i've said enough.
Thanks for this site Thibault!
Trent Parker
Wayne Lowrance (2006-05-19 08:05:25)
suggestion
I see your points. I play at another corresponce sight, Pacific-mall.com/chess. They have solved the problem there and incidentally it will satisfy those who have mentioned the desirability to chat with your opponent during the game. At pac-mall you can chat about the game or any subject, others can view the game and drop by to say hello, or what ever. Outsiders do not suggest moves but are allowed to talk about a particuliar line after the fact, but in ten years there I have not seen this done only in rare circumstances. In the talk window you can politely tell your oppent "it is mate come up. giving the forced line" or you can just say "Dan the game is lost for you, give your reason. All accept this decorum there. and it is the friendliest cite on the web. The players there range from novices to close to 2300 which I am. By the way, my name there is globalpac, look me up on the ladders (2). Do me a favor and check it out. Tell me what you think. Thank you With respect.... Wayne
Henri Muller (2006-05-23 09:43:09)
Time reflexion !!
Je rejoins en partie la note de Wayne Lowrance. Il y a quelque chose d'incorrect dans le décompte du temps de réflexion. Il suffit de jouer les 10 premiers coups très rapidement, et on dispose ensuite de 60 jours de réflexion !!! Ainsi, un joueur, sur le point d'être maté, peut attendre DEUX mois avant de répondre !? Et certaines parties traînent ainsi lamentablement....par manque de fair-play de l'adversaire. Aberrant ! Pourquoi pas limiter une réponse à 5 ou 7 jours de réflexion MAXIMUM - tout en conservant le décompte habituel. Il FAUT donc répondre endéans les 5 ou 7 jours ( ou perdre la partie ). Cette pratique est courante partout !!
Ryaad Aabid (2006-05-23 22:48:14)
why I have right to vote for my game ?!
I think it is better for the player hasn't vote for a game where he was an opponent in that game ! Why I don't let others to vote for one of my games as best ? I have myself done this mistake , but thenafter the mentioned idea has come to my attention :-)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-05-24 14:46:20)
New features
Here are some new features :
- Countries directory - http://www.ficgs.com/directory_countries.html
(with players sorted by name)
- Players sorted by rating for each country (click on the flags on the rating list)
- More player statistics (results with white and black, elo average opponents)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-01 15:47:28)
Replacement
I did not forget you, Ryaad. (time sometimes misses, sorry to your opponents..)
Does anyone would accept to replace Ryaad in the first Go tournament that started a few days ago ? Thanks in advance.
Reminder : If players wish to qualify for the FICGS Go championship, they must be among the 11 players who obtained the best results in Go tournaments (see rules).
I think 2 (maybe 3 if the number of players increase quickly) victories in tournaments should assure a place in the WCH tournament.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-05 14:11:42)
Rules : Forfeiting / Replacement
Hello to all.
As a few players stopped to play (forfeit) in their games, I answer here to questions from their opponents.
- Rated games lost on time / forfeited are not calculated for the winner's (only) rating if less than 10 moves have been played and position is equal.
- If a player forfeits in a rated tournament without having played a single move, his games will be lost and he will be replaced, ie. FICGS CHESS CLASS B 000003 ... furthermore, his account will be closed. (obvious cheating)
Best wishes.
Trent Parker (2006-06-09 06:30:40)
Countries? regions? Association
Perhaps teams could be built on regions, for eg Australia is a part of Oceania or could even come under south east asia, or sri lanka could come under the indian subcontinent or something like that. I think the teams should be geographical at least. Or a part of an association. Eg from memory the International blind chess federation has / had a team in OTB olympiads.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-19 14:53:39)
1. d4
The move 1.d4 offers the same benefits to development and center control as does 1.e4, but unlike with the King Pawn openings where the e4 pawn is undefended after the first move, the d4 pawn is protected by White's queen. This slight difference has a tremendous effect on the opening. For instance, whereas the King's Gambit is rarely played today at the highest levels of chess, the Queen's Gambit remains a popular weapon at all levels of play. Also, compared with the King Pawn openings, transpositions between variations are more common and critical in the closed games. White develops aiming for a particular formation without great concern over how Black chooses to defend. Both these systems are popular with club players because they are easy to learn, but are rarely used by professionals because a well prepared opponent playing Black can equalize fairly easily.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-19 15:13:45)
Chess Openings
Hi Tim.
What do you mean with Ruy Lopez ? There's IMO no opening better than other, it first depends on you play Black or White, who is your opponent (strength, favourite openings...), time controls..
Maybe you should specify your question... What opening against what move etc...
PS : I hope Amir will take a look at Wikichess, his opinion on chess openings would be very interesting to know ;)
Tim Bredernitz (2006-06-19 23:02:26)
Thanks
Thanks to all, especially Amir. I'm curious as to your game number, and how you use the old Spanish game. Also, Wolfgang makes a good point. I'm not sure the exact stats, but I'm pretty sure almost half or maybe more of the games played at the master level and above end in ties. Chess is a game of creating opportunities and executing against mistakes. Once a player gets to a certain skill level, I'm sure that it's rare that they make mistakes, so its harder for the opponent to win. One side will usually pull out the draw. Thanks again, Tim
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-20 16:05:08)
Sicilian opening & Kasparov
I quote from Amir analysis : "But if you want to win, the Sicilian is really the best choice."
I fully agree, I'll just add: but Sveshnikov sicilian :)
Actually, (not a surprise) you just have to see how Black pieces are conducted by Garry Kasparov in sicilian opening to understand what lines to follow, why it is the best choice... and why he became the best player of all times.
He simply always wanted to win, never draw... It is an illustration of a quote in this interesting (but failed) movie by Guy Ritchie, "Revolver" : "To win against a weaker opponent, you have to extend the game field."
Finally, it's the exact opposite of what Bobby Fischer said : "I don't believe in psychology, I believe in good moves". That's not enough IMO, chess openings are a psychologic battle that reflect the state of mind and will. It often decides in a way the result of the game, not by moves, but by the intention.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-22 15:47:42)
Interesting question for the Gambit's a
Gambits are the schizophrenics of the chess openings. Most players love to play through a finished game that starts as a gambit, but few players dare to play gambits themselves. Gambits lead to attacking games that avoid the calculated buildup preceding a classic attack. Can the gambiteer justify the material disadvantage? Can the opponent overcome the positional disadvantage that comes with grabbing the gambit sacrifice?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-22 18:10:05)
Acceptance of gambits...
Amir, in my opinion gambit is only a move like another... It is a psychological choice that depends on the opponent strength and play. IMO a gambit is "justified" (like any move) if the game is not lost... nothing more. If a gambit doesn't lead to a draw with a perfect play, it is a fault. And this thread is a troll :)
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.
Amir Bagheri (2006-06-23 12:26:28)
Blinfolded chess ( part II )
Very recently, however, all the honors of Europe, in this department of indoor games, have been run away with by two young Americans, Morphy and Paulsen. Paul Morphy, a native of New Orleans, seemed to be born with chess in his blood; he played almost from childhood; and at thirteen years of age he proved a formidable antagonist to Herr Lowenthal, a noted Hungarian. In 1857, when just twenty years of age, Morphy encountered Paulsen, a native of Iowa, only a little older than himself, at a chess congress in New Orleans (Editor: It was New York!). All the gray-beards struck their flag to Paulsen, and then he struck to Morphy. Of Morphy's subsequent achievements in regular play, which stamp him as perhaps the first living chess-player (we say this with fear and trembling; however, for the knights of the game are a sensitive race), we will not speak here, for our purpose is only to notice the blindfold performances. At the chess congress above mentioned, he finely played a blindfold game with a leading German player. Early in 1858, he struck the New Orleanists with amazement by playing six games simultaneously, without seeing any other the boards; winning five of them, and exhibiting beautiful play throughout. He then came to Europe, not only to "lick the Britishers," but "all creation;" and it must be admitted that he made great progress towards that achievement. At a meeting of the Chess Association at Birmingham, in August 1858, he played eight games simultaneously, without sight of the boards. His opponents were Lord Lyttelton, and seven other persons, mostly presidents or secretaries of provincial chess clubs. Against such players, and under such tremendous conditions, he won no less than six games out of the eight, drawing a seventh, and losing the eighth. In the following month, he went over and astonished the Parisians in a similar way; he contended blindfold against eight practised players at once, at the Cafe de la Regence, a famous resort of chess-players; and out of these did not lose even one; he was the victor in six, and drew the other two. In the spring of 1859, Morphy contended against eight of the most experienced members of the London Chess Club, including Mr. Mongredien and Mr. Walker, two distinguished players. He won two games, and drew the other six--all the players except himself being wearied out by a very protracted sitting. A few days afterwards, he played with eight members of the St. George's Chess Club, including Lord Cremorne, Lord Arthur Hay, and Captain Kennedy; he won five, and the rest were drawn through want of time to finish them. Nevertheless, inconceivable as these mental labors are, Morphy yields to Paulsen in blindfold play. There are whispers of twelve or fifteen games having been tried simultaneously by the latter; but the number ten has been most certainly reached, under conditions of the utmost publicity. On the 7th of October in the present year, at a Divan in the Strand, ten players accepted Mr. Paulsen's challenge to grapple with them all simultaneously, the boards being placed out of his sight. One of the players was M. Sabouroff, secretary to the Russian Embassy in London; the other nine comprised many names well known among chess-players. Ten chess-boards were placed on ten tables in the room. An arm-chair, turned away towards a window, was mounted on a dais. At two o'clock in the afternoon, Mr. Paulsen, a quiet, courteous young man, with not a trace of "brag" in him, took his seat in this arm-chair. For twelve mortal hours he never rose, never ate, never smoked, and drank nothing but a little lemonade. What were his mental labors during that time, we shall see. His ten antagonists took their seats at the ten tables; and each table speedily became the centre of a group of spectators, whose comments were not always so silent as in fairness they ought to have been. Paulsen could not see any of the chess-boards. Herr Kling, a noted player and teacher of chess, acted as general manager. He called the boards by numbers--No. 1 to No. 10. Paulsen audibly announced his first move for board No. 1; Kling made that move; the antagonist replied to it; Kling audibly announced the reply; Paulsen considered what should be his second move, and when he had audibly announced his decision, Kling made the proper move on the board. Here No. 1 rested for awhile. No. 2 now made his move, leading to the same course of proceeding as before. Then No. 3 in the same way; then No. 4; and so on to No. 10; after which No. 1 began a new cycle, by playing a second move; and thus they proceeded over and over again. Now let us see what all this implies and involves. Chess is not one of the most frolicsome of games; indeed, ladies generally declare it to be very dull, seeing that a chess-player is apt to be "grumpy" if spoken to on other matters while playing. The truth is, there is a demand for much mental work in managing a game well; the combinations and subtleties, the attacks and counter-attacks, are so numerous and varied, as to keep the mind pretty fully occupied. Nevertheless, a fine game between two fine players is mere child's play compared with this wonderful achievement of Paulsen. He was obliged to form ten mental pictures; and every picture changed with every move, like the colored bits in a kaleidoscope. Most persons, even though knowing nothing of the game, are aware that it begins with thirty-two pieces of different colors and forms, and that these move about over a board of sixty-four squares. After every change of position in any one of the pieces, Paulsen must have changed his mental picture of the board, the field of battle, and then made that a fixture until the next move was made. This is hard enough in even one game, against an antagonist who has his eyes to help him in planning attacks and defences; but how hard must it be against ten! It is difficult to conceive what is the condition of the mental machinery under such circumstances; and yet, there he sat, the calmest man in the room. When told of his antagonist's doings, one by one, he looked quietly out of window, and rubbed his chin, as a man often does when thinking, and then announced his move--never mistaking No. 1 for No. 7, No. 9 for No. 3--never failing to recover the proper mental picture, and making the proper change in it; never embarrassed; never making an unlawful move, or likely to lose sight (mental sight) of any unlawful move made by his antagonists. Nor did he obtain the least pause for mental rest. Without one minute's interval, as soon as he had announced a move for one board, he was required to attend to the move of another antagonist at another board. Hour after hour did this continue--all the afternoon, all the evening, midnight, until two in the morning. He made two hundred and seventy moves in the twelve hours, twenty-seven per game average; this gave two minutes and a quarter for the consideration of each move. As all his moves were met by corresponding moves on the part of his antagonists, he was called upon to form five hundred and forty complete mental pictures in twelve consecutive hours, each picture representing the exact mode in which all of the sixty-four squares of a chess-board were occupied. Paulsen won two games, lost three, and drew five.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-06-30 12:50:53)
Games lost on time
Hello Paul-Iosif.
When a game is lost on time you just have to wait a few hours and the game is adjudicated automatically.
I'll try to make a replacement in the tournament soon. You may have noticed that the game has been rated as a loss for your opponent, but not as a win for you, according to the rules cause less than 10 moves have been played.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-03 18:58:48)
Remaining time
Hello Pablo.
There's no problem :)
Last move by your opponent has been played on 2006 may 14, 50 days ago. The rules state that no move shall be played in more than 60 days. Your remaining time for the game is 35 days, so you just have to play one move, and the 9 days limit will disappear, your clock will be only 35 days. If you don't play a single move before 9 more days, the game will be lost on time.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 01:07:56)
Symmetrical games
The format used(8-game match with simultaneous games, 4 white and 4 black) brings up the issue of avoiding symmetrical games. I don't see a perfect way of doing this other than being conscious of the problem, and trying to deviate early on. If I see an opening chosen by my opponent that I am also planning to use, I have waited to respond in one(or more) of the games, until the position reached a point where I would normal deviate, and choose an alternate move with the opposite colour. Anyone else with better ideas about how to avoid this problem?
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 01:52:31)
Symmetrical games
Hello Gino.
What do you mean "symmetrical games" exactly ? (time is an important element)
First case, a player copies move after move another game played at the same time (a move after). Cheating is obvious and it's forbidden (rules)...
Second case, a game is symmetrical but moves are not played "at the same time" : It means suicide in the match for the player who has to win, with either Black or White... The same about the games played by the same player as White, there's no interest to play the same openings, as it would save his opponent's energy and loose chances to provoke a fault.
I had seen you were waiting to move with black in your match, but you can play the same opening with Black, it's up to your opponent to play different openings, otherwise it's good for you...
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 04:06:08)
Symmetrical games
I meant 2 identical games played with different colours usually against different opponents, but in this case against the same person. I'm sorry for not reading the rules, but there is no way to prove in simultaneous games, who is copying who since known theory in certain openings reaches 20+ moves. However, if someone delays his response until the opponent makes a decision in a critical point of the opening, he can then play the same opening without fear knowing that once that point is reached, he will make a different move.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-04 16:55:10)
Symmetrical games
I don't understand how it could be a problem. If one consider a critical position at the end of the opening (ie. clear advantage for White), who plays White first knows the position is bad for Black... Why would he play the same opening with Black ? It's a wrong question IMO, there are very few cases where there's only a "good" move until the end of the game.
Anyway, this question is even more relevant when playing different tournaments in different organizations (a player may respond moves played by an opponent in a game at IECG in another game at ICCF....) than in two players matches. Nothing can prevent that, but what a shame and where's the satisfaction ? I think it's not a problem there.
John Knudsen (2006-07-04 18:50:05)
Symmetrical games
Hi Thibault: The format is unusual, and not desired, IMHO, because you do not need an 8-game match with one opponent to determine who is the superior player. Think about it - it is 4 games with white, and 4 games with black. Overkill. You mention OTB chess players. What OTB player has played an 8-game match with the same opponent, lately? Never happens. It also never happens in serious correspondence chess, except here. I do not want to complain too much, because I thank you for the neat server, and the opportunity to play some serious games for free. However, the format will need to change, in the future, if you want to attract excellent players. John
Gino Figlio (2006-07-04 18:54:07)
Difficult to prove
If it's difficult to prove who is "cheating" in a match like this, it's practically impossible to prove foul play when the incident occurs in 2 different tournaments, against 2 different opponents. I'm sure this has happened in ICCF but unfortunately there is no way to detect it. I remember chessfriend claimed to have this figured out, but it was just one person's opinion. Players need to be aware of this problem and avoid it, nothing worse than being forced to play against yourself.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-07-06 11:51:20)
Out-of-time
In game 298 my opponent is said to be out-of-time.
Do I have to do something for claiming the win?
The game does not appear so far in the list of my finished games.
Marc
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-06 16:16:01)
Thanks to all...
That's quite a good start indeed... (to be continued) :)
I'd like to thank all players who helped to introduce FICGS to their federation, forums, friends... We just welcomed many Turkish players this way, and I hope many other players from continents not very represented yet (asia, arabia..) will join us soon. That's great to see people here from everywhere in the world, even countries I did not ever heard about before :)
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-06 16:38:23)
Out-of-time
Hello Marc.
You just have to wait the robot to adjuge the game (takes a few hours). If your opponent tries to play a move more, the game will be adjudicated automatically.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-07 17:06:28)
Game 1006
Hello Ryaad.
Your opponent's clock in the other games of the tournament, the logs and the tournament page cached by Google, all confirm the clock is right. Maybe another of your (numerous :)) games.
Marc Lacrosse (2006-07-08 11:08:51)
Modifying "rapid" tournament rules ?
Hello all,
Hello Thibault
As I already said in an earlyer thread, one of the reasons why I joined FICGS was the possibility to play fewer games simultaneously at a faster pace than in other corr. chess associations.
So I enrolled in a first rapid tournament where I find two things unpleasant for a so-called "rapid" category:
1. some of my opponents (and myself also) accumulated reflection time "reserves" of 40 or even 50 days in some cases, which is not appropriate for a "rapid" tournament IMHO.
2. my last unfinished game is completely won for more than ten moves now (it's K+pawns against K+pawns with an unstoppable passed pawn for me where computers announce forced mate in ... max 40 moves). My 2200+ opponent continues to play at a very slow pace. It's pretty annoying : I bet I could win my game at blitz tempo against Kasparov analysing for three days per move but I suppose I will have to play for weeks until his king is mated!
So I propose :
1. To have an absolute limitation of the time reserve a player can accumulate in rapid tournaments (30 ?)
2. To have a procedure allowing to call for external adjudication when a player refuses to resign a forcefully lost game.
Your opinion ?
Marc
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-10 15:21:09)
Sounds good ....
Thibault - thanks for the feedback and your openess to make changes in the vacation rules.
It's important to get some of these rules right while the player list is still relatively small and the players are still geting use to playing at FICGS. It will be harder to make rule changes in the future.
The 100 day maximum you set on accumulated time establishes FICGS as the trend setter in how to manage modern correspondence chess games. Excellent decision! Much of the problems people talk about in time control are prevented by the addition of this rule.
I'm sure you are aware the IECG has a 30 day maximum per move and the ICCF a 40 day maximum. The IECG limit is firm. You exceed 30 days once you lose. The ICCF's rule is unclear and unevenly managed. You reach 40 days, you need to beg the TD to do something. Sometimes he helps, sometimes he doesn't. Not a good situation.
Whatever limit you set at FICGS, I recommend you keep it firm and automatic like IECG. Personally I prefer 30 days, you prefer 60. IMHO 30 days is plenty of time to make a move is someone is serious about playing. 60 days is too long to wait. My preference is to make the rules enjoyable for those who want to play, not for those who sign up and then get "busy" and rudely make their opponents sit and wait. IMHO you'll attract and keep a better membership base by making the rules player friendly, not player annoying.
Thanks again. My best to you.
Gino Figlio (2006-07-11 03:59:17)
Leave
Hi Thibault, Everyone has their own opinion about this. Do what you think it's best. My opinion: If you want to mimic the ICCF method, don't allow play during leave and change to programming to freeze the clock when a player takes leave, therefore not adding the leave time to the reflection time. If you want to continue with your original idea of adding the leave to the reflection time, then add only 50% of the time, since the clock stops for the player on leave when the opponent is on move anyway. You may suggest players to take leave after they make a move, in order to take maximun benefit. Other ideas related to preventing players from dragging out lost games/positions would be to establish a lower limit for leave time say of 7 days; preventing players from going on/off leave multiple times; to prevent exceeding the reflection time. Another approach would be to try to regulate more the higher limit of time per move, by allowing players to take 30 days per move only once, 20 days per move 3 times, 10 days per move 9 times..etc. you can change the numbers to fit your desire but you get the idea. Best, Gino
Henri-Louis Muller (2006-07-12 09:19:01)
foorball world cup
On est quand même sur un forum où TOUTES les idées peuvent être débatues. Que l'on soit belge, français ou autre !!C'est du moins ce que je pensais ! En ce qui me concerne, l'incident est clos ( ici du moins !!) et je rejoins les observation pertinentes de Thibault ! Bonnes parties....d'échecs à tous !
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006-07-12 20:12:40)
Tournament entry rating
Hello Thibault!
Am I right that my TER (tournament entry rating) is not essential for the calculation of my new FIGCS - ELO - rating. If I'm not right, in which variable can I find it? I thought the difference of my opponents and my own rating at the beginning of the tournament would be of importance.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-12 22:54:50)
Tournament entry rating
Hello Heinz-Georg.
Your TER is not taken in account when a rating calculation occurs (your opponent's one is, of course).
But your previous ELO has a weight in the formula...
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-19 12:39:31)
Public comments
Hello Gino.
Indeed, no way to message your opponent if not your turn (you may wait to play a move and ask him - message window when confirming your move).
About public comments, maybe we can improve it... 3 ways IMO :
1) Public comments should be available only when the game is finished.
2) A checkbox in your 'Preferences' to authorize public comments from your opponents. (I don't like this one much..)
3) I specify in the rules that comments are simply authorized.
What do you think is best ?
In my opinion, comments should be always available... I see no reason why it could perturb more than private messages.. By the way, this option was asked on the forum previously when looking for a way to warn players who obviously last games too much... Maybe we could see and wait.
Thibault de Vassal (2006-07-21 11:24:02)
Mise a jour classement ELO
Bonjour Eric.
Tout est là (11.7) : http://www.ficgs.com/membership.html#general
"The rating period is 2 months. The first period of a year starts on January 1st. For ratings calculations, the opponents' Tournament Entry Rating (TER), which are valid on the day of the rating run, are used."
La prochaine mise à jour sera donc pour le 1er septembre.
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-22 19:50:51)
Interesting Discussion Topic
Thibault - this is a interesting discussion topic. Of course, no one knows the future with certainty, but we can all offer an opinion :)
I'm nearing my 40th year of correspondence play. Sometime later this year I will complete my 1000th tournament game. All my games were played by postcard until the mid 90's. E-mail dominated my CC schedule from about 1998 until 2002. Now I only play server chess. I've played on the FICGS, IECG, GameKnot, ChessFriend, Schemingmind and ICCF servers.
Contrary to many people who've played as long as I have, I do NOT see chess engines as a threat to the game. I think they've changed the game, but not hurt the game. I believe they've increasd CC's popularity and game quality. The same is true for opening and ending databases.
Some of the changes that will occur in CC the next ten years:
- Servers will improve functionality and ease of use.
- Due to engine use we will grow to accept 2200 as an "average" rating rather than "Master."
- Tournaments will be re-structured to include fewer players per section and shorter tournament durations. This particularly applies to ICCF where 15 player sections and slow time rules to simulate postal chess are used.
- New server functionality will be added to allow players the option to SLOW down the game. It's too easy to get caught in a mindless "server flurry."
- New chess software will be developed to analyze games. This analysis tool will give proability estimates on what engine one's opponent is using. That information will allow one to counter and plan against one's opponent.
- There will be more anti-computer books written and theories developed. We will use these techniques to beat our opponent and and improve our chess planning skills.
Bottomline ... I am excited by the new technology. I see continued advances in the way we manage our gameload, the way we send moves, the way we play, plan and analyze our moves. The way we play in the future will be different and will still be fun for those who embrace new technology. My disappointment is I am an old man and unlikely to enjoy all the advantages the future brings. I hope those who follow me enjoy what I will miss :)
Dinesh De Silva (2006-07-24 11:13:10)
Re: Future of correspondence chess......
I foresee that in the future there'll be teleconferencing & chatting live with the opponent/multiple opponents while making one's moves, analysing, drinking coffee etc. Well, players may be making faces at each other trying to scare off each other and/or rattling off bizarre variations to make it seem that the opponent has no option but to resign the game/s. Haha!!!!!
Glen D. Shields (2006-07-24 17:04:52)