Home
Information
Login
Register
Waiting lists
Membership
Hall of fame
Tournaments
Best game
Wikichess
Rating list
Problems
Forum
Links
Help
About
| Install FICGS apps | |
| play chess online |  |
|
Game result (chess) B. Ozen, 2269 N. Wilson, 2121 1/2-1/2 See game 152323 |
Hot news Discussions Files search Social network
Here are 100 results for Repa Jason in the games.
Game_122704 Game_65802 Game_65800 Game_65798 Game_65795 Game_65791 Game_65786 Game_65332 Game_65331 Game_65330 Game_65329 Game_65328 Game_65322 Game_64928 Game_64927 Game_64924 Game_64921 Game_64917 Game_64912 Game_64667 Game_64666 Game_64665 Game_64664 Game_64663 Game_64662 Game_64521 Game_64520 Game_64519 Game_64518 Game_64517 Game_64511 Game_64301 Game_64300 Game_64297 Game_64294 Game_64290 Game_64285 Game_64271 Game_64270 Game_64269 Game_64268 Game_64267 Game_64261 Game_64237 Game_64235 Game_64233 Game_64230 Game_64226 Game_64221 Game_64149 Game_64147 Game_64145 Game_64142 Game_64138 Game_64133 Game_63796 Game_63795 Game_63794 Game_63793 Game_63792 Game_63786 Game_63588 Game_63587 Game_63586 Game_63582 Game_63578 Game_63573 Game_63405 Game_63404 Game_63403 Game_63402 Game_63401 Game_63400 Game_63077 Game_63076 Game_63075 Game_63074 Game_63073 Game_63067 Game_62636 Game_62635 Game_62634 Game_62633 Game_62632 Game_62631 Game_62624 Game_62617 Game_61837 Game_61836 Game_61835 Game_61831 Game_61827 Game_61822 Game_61740 Game_61739 Game_61738 Game_61737 Game_61732 Game_61727 Game_61478
There are at least 100 results for Repa in the forum.
Scott Ligon (2022-11-27 22:06:35)
I did not win a game since 3 years
If you mean John Shaw's book on the King's Gambit, I have that book and he did say that the Bishop's Gambit is refuted. But he qualifies what he means: "In this context I define the term 'refutation' as Black being better in all variations, not winning by force." Not much of a refutation. If you search my game history, I have played the Bishop's Gambit several times and I haven't lost. That's why I'm confident white can hold the draw.
I'd be willing to play in that thematic tournament, and I'd be very well prepared.
William Taylor (2019-03-24 21:23:31)
Leela Chess Zero & neural networks
Early on it looked like it was never going to approach AlphaZero levels, but it went toe-to-toe with Stockfish in the last TCEC and must presumably be better than it in some kinds of position. I don't play much correspondence chess these days but will probably try using it for OTB preparation soon.
You're certainly right that AI is having and will have massive societal impacts - hopefully largely positive ones, but that will require smart legislation, responsible research and an informed general public.
Peter W. Anderson (2018-06-02 09:21:07)
Komodo 12 with AlphaZero techniques
My gut feeling is that Monte Carlo is most applicable to the opening, but I am not sure that is better than alpha-beta even there.
By the way, in my judgement Leela is already very strong in the opening. If I was still playing correspondence I would be using Leela to help prepare openings.
William Taylor (2018-05-01 23:52:16)
1st King Supertournament
One of the reasons I didn't enter this tournament is that it's not clear how to guarantee compliance with the 'no databases' requirement. What happens if I need to prepare for an OTB game against a King's Gambit player? Obviously I will consult my database and theoretical works, and cannot help but have my ongoing 'King Supertournament' games in my mind.
Peter W. Anderson (2017-04-19 16:03:14)
WCh and other ramblings
To my mind big hardware only helps a little bit at FICGS speeds. Yes if you space bar everything then it might make a lot of difference but if you are prepared to work hard analysing variations properly then I think much less so - working hard is far more important than having a big computer.
For me it is more a question of how often whilst analysing those variations I can see a mis-evaluation or come up with an idea that the engines miss. It still happens but less often now than 5 years ago.
But I take your point about poker. And at faster chess speeds big comps are essential. The ideal configuration for the Infinity chess tour? - a strong human player who is experienced at advanced chess and 6 (or more) big comps running :)
David Fierry Fraillon (2016-12-04 07:24:53)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Ok it can be very long then ...
I am not happy with banishment solution ... i guess the idea is to have a lot of players ... and more.
IF you look at some rating evolution you will see that some player just stop corresponding chess and are back few months later and sometimes more ...
I will do it myself as soon as i will finish my games because i have to prepare myself to normal chess ...
So i think it is normal for many reason to leave corresponding chess for a few months and be back ... i think also that it is normal to resign if you can ... but as Thibault wrote you can find many reason to not be able to do it .... By the way : Thibault, can you solve the trick of creating a new account when a player is banished ? I have only two solution in mind : reducing the maximal time allowed to one move to 30 (i do not like it because i use it sometimes when i am on the X9th move ... :-) ) and reducing time for adjudication ...
Garvin Gray (2016-02-12 01:26:27)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Ahh thank you. Some definite answers about progress. And dates :) This now allows players the opportunity to prepare. Time to get the word out.
This now can set a bit of a FICGS calendar :)
Garvin Gray (2014-10-31 16:00:59)
July 1 2014 Fide laws of chess
There have been quite a few changes. But considering our continual disagreements over many issues and the fact that apart from this event, I have walked away from this site, it is not my job to now go ahead and do your work for you.
I am not your research assistant. I offered you my advice many times over the years and in almost all occasions you flatly rejected them, or took so long to come around to them, that I have taken the decision to walk away from this site.
The new fide laws of chess have been on display since July 1 and have been confirmed in stages since then. I am not going to be your research assistant and now sit down and prepare a full document on what has changed and how it should be incorporated into this event- ESPECIALLY- when I know from your past form- that you will flat reject most, if not all, of my recommendations.
So I am not going to waste my time being your research assistant.
I have my own event to prepare for in 2015 and prepare the rules for in that event, which I am working through.
I can give you a word of warning though. If you think that the default time is the only major change, you are very wrong.
Charlie Neil (2013-04-21 19:59:04)
!!! The Next world chess Champion !!!
Now it is Carlsen v Anand. Vishy will find it hard to prepare as as far as I can see Magnus plays just about any opening with confidence. Krammik and Gelfand are theorists while Carlsen is a player.
Alvin Alcala (2013-04-02 17:46:55)
!!! The Next world chess Champion !!!
Anand. Experience + Good opening preparation. Maybe in next WCCC cycle Magnus will prevail.
Garvin Gray (2012-10-09 16:33:26)
WCH Final match
Thib: I think your analysis or love with the old style world champ format contains a flaw in relation to playing on here.
In the old style world champs, games are played one at a time. On here, all the games start at the same time.
Secondly, with the old style world champs, the matches were over 24 games, so the equivalent would be to play the final match over 24 games.
The current world champ cycle suffers from the same effect as the ficgs final match does, the match is too short, resulting in lots of draws because one loss is devastating.
If you do not want to change the rules to encourage players to try for wins, then lengthen the match to 24 games.
Otherwise you are just like quite a lot of organisers who just love the past (tradition) and are not prepared to make the players actually try to win games, rather than bore their viewers to death with short draws.
Dmitri Mamrukov (2012-08-19 03:56:37)
This is Russia :(
Kasparov is a well-paid shill of the globalist power.
"Is Kasparov an anomaly or does he fit right in with this coven of far-right loonies? And who are some of the prominent members of the Center for Security Policy? Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Frank Gaffney, James Roche and Laura Ingraham. Oh, boy. The whole front office of the neocon’s cuckoo’s nest. Now tell me, dear reader, with friends like that; what should we really think about Kasparov’s performance in Moscow? Is he really interested in "democracy promotion" as he claims or is their acting out a script that was prepared in Washington?"
http://www.counterpunch.org/2007/12/05/why-murdoch-s-journal-loves-kasparov/
Thibault de Vassal (2012-05-09 01:46:02)
Xiao Tong on his win in 6th FICGS Go WCH
Xiao Tong, winner of the 6th FICGS Go championship, kindly accepted to answer a few questions, here is the first part:
FICGS - Hello Xiao, congratulations once again for winning this nice match. Svante Carl von Erichsen was FICGS champion from the start of the site, after winning 5 championships. What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Xiao Tong - Mr. Svante Carl von Erichsen is the strongest player I have met on this site. The games are so tough. In the middle of this match I thought I would lose in at least two games. At last I am lucky to have a 4-1 winning.
FICGS - Would you like to tell us a few words about you (where you live, other games you play, Go servers you play on...) so that we know you better?
Xiao Tong - I live in China but when I started to play Go on this site I was visiting France. In China when we play Go face to face, generally it takes 2 or 3 hours. But when we play on the ineternet, we always choose 30sec/move. I always play on TYGEM site, which is a China/Korea cooperated site. Before playing we need to install a client software. You can visit this address http://www.tygembaduk.com
FICGS - Unfortunately you are one of the rare chinese players at FICGS, but obviously they do very well. We all know many chinese Go champions names, could you tell us your opinion on the state of Go in China and in the world nowadays?
Xiao Tong - The past 10 years can be called Korea decade. They won more world championships than Chinese players, because before 1990 few Chinese children studied Go. But when China won several matches between China and Japan in late 1980s, more and more children started to study and play go. And then these millions of Go children grew up. Now Chinese players can get more world champions than Korea. I think besides the several world champions there are 30 young players in China who may win world championships in the future. They aged from 16-25.
FICGS - The best Go engines would now reach a level of 4 or 5 dan, is computer Go something that helps in such a correspondence Go championship according to you (and without revealing your secrets of course)? Do you think it is becoming a danger as it is for chess?
Xiao Tong - I don’t think computer Go engines can do anything. They are too weak.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your opponents before starting your games? Do you think that preparation is really important like it is in Correspondence chess?
Xiao Tong - I don’t take much time to analyze my opponents. But I will watch their games to get a first evaluation. World champions need to prepare before the game, because preparation can save their time in game. For me, preparation mean nothing.
FICGS - This FICGS Go championship is still young, what did you think about it? Would you change something, any rule, to improve it?
Xiao Tong - 1, Encourage players to play live games. One game can be finished in 2 hours when they play at 30sec/move. The more they play, the higher the site level will be. 2, when the world champion match is live on net, encourage player watch the games through your site. Let the watcher can bet on the live games. It will be more funny.
Many thanks to Xiao for these instructive answers, to be continued...
Peter W. Anderson (2012-05-03 18:28:20)
Slow tournament entries
Of course there is no perfect time limit. What is too slow for one person will be too fast for some others. The current Rapid speed seems to get the balance about right - quick enough to allow a sensible length to the tournament but slow enough to allow some real thought even if you are working or have significant family commitments.
But perhaps the acid test is how many people are prepared to play at that speed. It does not seem to put people off playing in the current WCH, so whilst it will not be everyone's favourite, it does seem to have a broad enough appeal.
In terms of format, I think large groups (say 11+ people in each group) work well and I think better serve the idea of giving people a chance to play stronger players better than a Swiss, which is fine for a game or two and then flattens out.
In summary, I think Garvin's original suggestion works well.
Thibault de Vassal (2012-02-24 20:36:16)
Folding in Poker
Ok, note: it could have been discussed in the forum when I announced it... Anyway the current rules may be better at the end, ratings are not dedicated to change faster than necessary. It also avoids that anyone can reach the top just by lasting a few games.
Also look at the results of Nelson:
vs. Aleksey Payzansky (2086) : 67% (56 games, 38 wins, 18 losses)
vs. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2006) : 90% (52 games, 47 wins, 5 losses)
vs. Jason Repa (2095) : 58% (39 games, 23 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Yulian Kehayov (2022) : 54% (35 games, 19 wins, 16 losses)
vs. Anderson Barradas (2021) : 72% (29 games, 21 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Scott Nichols (2119) : 64% (28 games, 18 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Lubos Fric (1924) : 68% (25 games, 17 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Stephane Legrand (2187) : 54% (22 games, 12 wins, 10 losses)
vs. Rolf Staggat (2116) : 61% (21 games, 13 wins, 8 losses)
vs. Janeen Walden (2000) : 75% (20 games, 15 wins, 5 losses)
IMO he just fully deserves his rating. The reason why noone else can reach it may be just that he's the best player for a while, what do you think?
Thibault de Vassal (2011-12-28 21:45:00)
5 player double round robins
We agree on the idea, but do you think that it would at least partly solve the main problem of the discussion? I can prepare that within the next days.
Jimmy Huggins (2011-11-28 10:38:22)
WBCCC 2 sign up and WBCCC 1 review
After an exciting WBCCC 1, Own Champion ppipper (José Sanz) wins with a finally score of 7.5 out 10. FICGS top players were in a tied for 2nd with Timothy Cookson, Sebastian Boehme, and Ruben Comes. Credit also has to go to David Evans who had ppipper as White in the last game. And went all out to beat him. In the end Jose pulled out the win with black. For those interested I highly recommend you read this article. About the champion talked about his tournament games.
http://www.chesscafe.com/chessok/chessok.htm
Now I wanted to go a head and open up the sign up for the 2nd edition of WBCCC and tell everyone about the improvements and add ons.
The first major improvement on WBCCC is that it will have a simple to use conditional move system. With our easy downloadable client we use. There is also going to be a 2nd tournament for those who prefer a little more time than own standard tournament of 30days per side. In the 2nd tournament that is going to be called Rybka Forum Grand Prix. Is going to be 30day for the first 40 moves and 30 days Sudden Death after that. So basically you get 30 more days for 40 moves on your clock. Now here is a few more things to know about the tournament. After each move, if you request it. You can have your move noticed to you by email. This is good for the busy person who doesn't check the game forums all the time. The other thing added to the tournament is that there will be a file on hand for everyone to check to see what sites everyone plays on it a head of time. This is good for guys who like to prepare for there opponent. As for other fun things offered. I finalize with chesspublishing.com that they will help for own best game per round and the winners will get there games analyzed by the top players there and will publish them on the forum. Which I can expand to here and the other forums I promote at. For some were scared of the time control, but in truth we only had 2 games time out, but this was because they left there games. Which was a disappointment, but 2 games over a whole tournament was very good! If you maybe interested, but are unsure about the time. I recommend talking to me and when can have a test game to see if you can handle it. Most know with in a week or 2 if they can do it or not. Thanks for the support of Thib and everyone that played this year and anyone that will try this next year!
Jimmy
Jimmy Huggins (2011-08-11 00:17:07)
Ideas for a Freestyle tournament
Here is around idea that could help some. Would anyone be in favor of closing the entry a week or so before the event to know what the 1st round pairings are and possibly give a little time to prepare for an opponent.
This has the advantage for the organizers to get everything ready. I know we will have something to discuss, before the event starts.
Daniel Parmet (2011-03-27 09:22:53)
FICGS Quote file
Tell me this whopper isn't worthy!
"If you are not prepared to be wrong then you will never come up with anything original" - Sir Ken Robinson
!!
Thibault de Vassal (2011-01-30 21:07:31)
Eros on his win in the 4th chess WCH
Eros Riccio kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his win in the 4th FICGS chess WCH, and explained how one particular game influenced another one that he finally won:
- Hi Eros, first of all congratulations for your latest outstanding results at FICGS, you won the Freestyle tournament, now two chess championships in a row... When the privilege of the champion is to defend his title without playing the preliminary tournaments, you are involved in all championship cycles & a few regular tournaments, do you plan to avoid that anyone can even reach the championship final in the future? :-)
Thanks! I must admit that this is really a magic moment for me in chess... if you consider that despite my recent ICCF Grand Master Title, probably I will also soon win my third italian Correspondence Champion Title out of three participations in the Italian Final Tournaments. And now also this huge satisfaction of being the FICGS Champion! I look forward to seeing a new challenger soon, I wonder who he will be, but let me enjoy the next few months for now ;-)
- What are your impressions on the games? Did you have any strategy from the beginning to the end? Finally did it work or was there another factor? (without revealing your secrets, of course :))
The games in the opening were as I expected, all Najdorf Sicilians except one game where I played 1.d4. My goal was to win at least one game, so I tried different aggressive variations as White (6.Bg5, 6.f3, 6.Be3 and 6.h3) with the hope of catching Edward unprepared on at least one of these, but uff, he was very well prepared on each one of them! A curious thing is that my biggest chance of winning happened in a game where I had the Black pieces! So Edward had to take some risks in one of his games where he had Black (the games where he had White were already finished or all very drawish) he was forced to avoid an easy draw he had (the 6.h3 game) and eventually he lost that game. Happy of having reached my goal of winning at least one game, I accepted his draw offer in that other game (6.f3 e5 7.Nb3 Be6 8.Be3 Be7 9.Be2) where I had good winning chances.
- You probably noticed, like many correspondence chess players, that the hardware still fastly improves while chess engines are continuously getting stronger, particularly since that "supposed" clones of Rybka (some may be even stronger than Rybka herself) appeared in the race. Do you think that the rate of draws will be so high soon that it may definitely kill correspondence chess? Do you have any opinion on these new engines?
I think that despite the big improvement of Hardwares and engines, we are still very far (and we will still be in the next 5 years, hopefully) from a situation where all the games will most probably end in a draw. So I think we can enjoy correspondence chess for many more years in the future, even if of course the Draw percentage at the highest levels will be higher and higher.
- I remember that you were surprised to win your match against Alberto in the Candidates Final of the 5th cycle (the reason why you do not even have to defend your title this time), the WCH rules (particularly the co-existence of the round-robin tournament & knockout tournament) are obviously not well understood by all players, what do you think about this system and the tie in 8 games matches? Are there changes you'd like to see in the future?
Yes, I really was! We were both convinced that with all draws, the higher rated player would have won (Alberto was higher rated than me in that match). Anyway it was our fault, as we didn't read the rules carefully. I am not sure what changes could be done in the future... maybe this is anyway the best setup, no new ideas are coming to my mind right now.
- Do you have a few more words for Edward after these nice games? Maybe also for your future opponents? :)
It was a real pleasure for me to play him, not only for the interesting games we played, but also for the friendly chats we had during the exchanges of the moves. I hope to play him again in the future for a rematch.
- Thanks for your answers and congratulations again!
Welcome, and thanks ;-)
_________
It is very interesting to see that a even a player like Eros prefered to minimize the risks (avoiding mouse drops or whatever) as much as possible by accepting a draw in a game where he had winning chances. Correspondence chess is definitely not all about chess, that's probably the lesson.
Also it is reassuring to read that correspondence chess is NOT dead yet, nor soon :)
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-16 09:54:53)
Preparation in sicilian
Another game I remember, the typical win by preparation (I was absolutely not prepared in this variant yet) in a blitz game - Eros & Alberto made it well with this line during the 1st Freestyle tournament.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=15363
I don't remember what move is the point exactly at a first sight, somewhere around Qxe5 but Black did not expect what kind of endgame will happen after the next 20 moves, btw many are forced but the line may be too long for most engines. The game was lost already, and I'm not sure if engines choose the right way (wouldn't be a trap anymore)...
Thibault de Vassal (2010-12-07 22:53:20)
Who's the favorite in the WBCCC?
Good idea! So one more correspondence chess event to come...
Hi Sebi, I don't know Ruben's play enough that's right, but I guessed that his preparations for advanced (blitz) chess may be sort of trap for himself, corr. chess is really different. The point is IMO that for some reasons Wayne will play correspondence chess in this tournament while many others may play something between advanced chess and correspondence chess... Question of time also... But as Jimmy said, this would be a "slight" advantage after all, everything can happen and you have good chances too!
Jimmy Huggins (2010-11-06 07:30:29)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
You make a good point about Christmas and even sometimes people do things on the New Year. I have to probably go with the January 14th idea. If only because I would like to give Dadi as much time as he needs to get the clock system to work. By I will leave a line on the Forum and see what people say. As for the give a week to get play to reply. I had already decide on that. I will be so much easily to do it that way. As to have to repair 2 or 3 times.
Jimmy Huggins (2010-10-30 11:27:56)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
my user name is Thehug, The tournament will begin in January. Be prepare as the name subjects its going to be a Blitz Corr Tournament. So most players will make a move a day or over other day
Kamesh Nookala (2010-10-27 06:16:34)
Strong Tournament at Rybka Forum
Who is Eros? I don't care about names when it comes to strong chess. What I see is blood on board and fear in my opponent's eyes. May be with IDEA technology, I may have to think again :)
But, come what may, I am prepared
Oh forgot (baning my head again)
And also btw, to whom it is intended ............. :-o
Thibault de Vassal (2010-09-17 00:29:38)
Svante Carl von Erichsen on Go WCH #4
As you probably read in the news, Svante Carl von Erichsen won the 4th FICGS Go WCH, beating his challenger Huayong Yang 3-2, Svante Carl wins the Go championship for the 4th time in a row!
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000004
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match & computer Go:
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, congratulations once again for winning this match against a surprising challenger who started here a few months ago with a 10 kyu rank, Huayong Yang, now rated 2438 after scoring 2 points in your 5 games match (which is a great achievement for sure). What did you think about his play & yours in these games?
Svante Carl - I think that he greatly underestimated his rank initially. As far as I know, he had not played for a long time and believed that his ability had therefore deteriorated. I do not think that you can drop more than one or at most two stones, though -- it is like cycling or swimming, you never unlearn it. I had the impression that we were quite evenly matched in summa, but our strengths are in different aspects of the game; I cannot really put my finger on the difference, though.
FICGS - After a previous win, you said that you spend a quite long time to analyze, which probably helps you to reach a higher level than 2 dan (your EGF rating) compared to OTB play... It looks obvious to me that correspondence chess moves generally ask for much more time than Go moves at a high level but I may be wrong, how much time did you spend on your longest analysis during the match? Do you remember for which move?
Svante Carl - I usually spend at least a few minutes on each move, except when the continuation is obvious. I often use more, and if I do not find a satisfactory move then, I will even postpone the move to another day, so that I can sleep over it and let my subconcious work on it.
FICGS - Do you watch other games played by your future opponent before starting your match? Do you think that this is really important in preparation like it can be in Correspondence chess?
Svante Carl - I sometimes glance over the games in the championship qualification tournament, but I do not try to prepare this way. I do not think that such preparation has any value in Go, especially in correspondence Go, since you have time during the game to do deep analysis. I usually try to take each game out of standard fuseki patterns pretty quickly, anyway. Of course, I know that my opponents in these title matches are always very tough and demand my utmost respect.
FICGS - Do you still follow the recent developments in computer Go? What do you think about the latest Go engines? How much time do we have yet before the best Go players are caught by computers according to you?
Svante Carl - I have the impression that the currently most promising technology (Monte Carlo/UCT) has the potential to achieve a rank of about 2 or 3 dan (EGF/KGS). I think that the next fundamentally new idea or breakthrough might add 2 stones, to get to 4 or 5 dan. I do not have any idea where it might go from that, but I think that it gets always harder.
What I would find interesting is having more intermediate board sizes. The best bots are almost on par with the best professionals on 9x9 now. I would propose to try to achieve a similar level on 11x11, then 13x13, then 15x15 etc.. Regarding 9x9, I think that the currently predominant komi of 7.5 points is too big, and that this has a negative impact on the experiments because the bots do not play in a balanced environment. It might be worthwhile to introduce the Taiwan rule (last move compensation) to get more fine-grained scores.
FICGS - What programs did you use this year to analyze? (just trying, of course it may be part of your secrets ;))
Svante Carl - It is not a secret. I just use an editor, usually EidoGo or CGoban3, to visualize the variations I imagine.
FICGS - Finally, what thoughts would you like to share on your 5 games, that could help us not to miss the best times or to help us to understand the most complex moves...
Svante Carl - I cannot give a detailed commentary, but I can try to summarize my impressions.
I think that Game 5 was quite balanced until move 21, but I think that the white invasion was a bit ambitious then. Of course, White did not need to die there, but after moves 32-33 I think that Black had a good result anyway (move 32 should go out faster in my opinion; note how E14 helps Black in enclosing White).
In Game 3, I think things got quite difficult for White in the lower left, but I let him take the initiative by backing off at move 35 (I should have simply closed off F10 then). White gained control of the centre as a result, and in the large endgame, I lost too many points there.
In Game 4, I fell behind in the opening through some slow moves (there was some discussion on the Life-in-19x19 forum about this, see the link in the comments of that game). In the endgame, Black then lost some points in the centre, so that I was a bit ahead when the game timed out.
In Game 1, I made some bad decisions on the left side, and never managed to turn things around. I think I was behind by about 5 points in the end.
In Game 2, I think that Black should not have ignored move 24. After I got quite some territory from my moyo and also reduced his top side, I could play it safe.
I look forward to the games with Olivier Drouot that recently started, but I also hope that Yang Huayong will re-enter the championship cycle.
Thibault de Vassal (2010-06-02 18:26:28)
Incredible poker hand
Just look at this strange hand between Jason Repa & Nelson Bernal Varela... the community cards and player's ones are really amazing... Pair of aces, pair of queens and a straight flush appears in the community cards... quite rare. And only 12 chips in the pot.
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=43092&move=1023
Any comment on this one? :)
Tano-Urayoan Russi Roman (2010-05-12 19:31:36)
Rybka 4, news, tests & results
By the way it is stated here http://www.chessbase.com/espanola/newsdetail2.asp?id=8300 (article is in spanish) by Cheparinov that Topalov's team had access to Rybka 4 during preparation. Also new Rybka opening book author, Jiri Dufek, was on Topalov's team.
Kamesh Nookala (2010-05-11 20:22:57)
Entry fee for higher class tournament
Dear Thib,
All this stuff is way too much for my little 1 kb brain to understand. Whatever, you guys decide, I am prepared for that, coz, you guys wont do things without a genuine reason and a valid discussion !
I will keep on trying to march ahead !
Mircea Hrubaru (2010-04-28 22:14:49)
Anand vs. Topalov, world championship
I think we should put aside the first game. In my view black played allright until the blunder 23...Kf7? which gave white the chance to blow away black's position with 23. Nxf6!! (Anand saw the pawn in f6 under the threat Nxf6 and that's why he defended with the king, but I think he didn't consider the immediate capture).
In games 2 and 4 Anand showed a superb preparation in an opening that haunts Topalov since his match against Kramnik. Game 2 showed a Topalov looking for deadly attacks and ignoring the lack of sufficient force in the attack. Until now the game with the highest quality is surely game 4, where 10. Na3!? caught Topalov offguard. Between them Anand showed in game 3 that he can chill out and play for safety.
Philip Roe (2009-12-08 05:21:27)
Marcs notes
Thibault,
Presumably if these notes do come to light you will put them where all of the participants in Thematic 100 (and any subsequent sections) can see them.
Perhaps if they form the basis for a monograph, somebody might be prepared to edit it.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-11-29 17:15:18)
Nigel Davies & Garry Kasparov
Hi Nick,
Nigel Davies played with computer assistance but IMO only to verify his moves, he was very creative in some games. As for Garry Kasparov, if I remember well, he said a long time ago that he could become easily the best correspondence chess player (if assisted by computers, I guess). However I'm not sure if his preparations for OTB chess would be useful here, but most probably he could achieve this. Hard to predict what rating he could reach as a centaur, maybe 2650-2700....... Without computer assistance, it would be much harder, maybe 2300-2350 ..
It seems to me that Peter Leko played some games at ICCF, without so much success also, right?
Thibault de Vassal (2009-10-29 23:01:27)
Most active players, amazing statistics!
These statistics (updated every 2 days) are available at :
http://www.ficgs.com/about.html
And the overall winner is........ :)
Players most active : General (moves played)
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 124234
2. Rolf Staggat : 81806
3. Anderson Barradas : 55829
4. Stephane Legrand : 47936
5. Scott Nichols : 46711
6. Mark Noble : 37387
7. Findlay Murray : 35874
8. Volker Koslowski : 33241
9. Don Groves : 29539
10. Thibault de Vassal : 26104
11. Francisco Gramajo : 25281
12. Sergey Uzdin : 25256
13. Michael Sharland : 24890
14. Josef Riha : 24193
15. Jason Repa : 22765
16. Laurine Ségur : 22577
17. Alexis Bromo : 20198
18. Benjamin Collette : 20112
19. Fernando Vasquez : 19928
20. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 19174
21. Christian Koch : 18450
22. Evgeny Yarkov : 17168
23. Xavier Pichelin : 16559
24. Garvin Gray : 16388
25. Ranganathan Raman : 15750
26. Sebastian Boehme : 15190
27. Zdravko Stoyanov : 15186
28. Nick Ioffe : 15151
29. Phil Cook : 15007
30. Sean McNabb : 14572
31. Daniel Parmet : 13814
32. Ilmars Cirulis : 13118
33. Joaquim Malpalma : 13057
34. Dmitriy Panov : 12733
35. Nelson Bernal Varela : 12119
36. Marco Roncagliolo : 11741
37. Dmytro Romaniuk : 11648
38. Miroslav Rakovic : 11435
39. Nick Burrows : 11242
40. Janeen Walden : 10967
41. Claude Brisson : 10812
42. Sandor Porkolab : 10714
43. Christophe Czekaj : 10678
44. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
45. Peter Willoughby : 10634
46. Benjamin Block : 10633
47. Kate Lubeck : 10155
48. Charlie Neil : 10076
49. Darko Pipac : 10072
50. William Taylor : 10036
Players most active : Go
1. Don Groves : 17026
2. Claude Brisson : 10812
3. Nick Ioffe : 10795
4. Alejandro Suarez-Moreno : 10018
5. Mickaël Simon : 8986
6. Thibault de Vassal : 8870
7. Sean McNabb : 8666
8. Sergey Tarassov : 8236
9. Phil Cook : 8186
10. Tetsuya Kobayashi : 7816
Players most active : Chess
1. Josef Riha : 24119
2. Fernando Vasquez : 19820
3. Zdravko Stoyanov : 14523
4. Anderson Barradas : 12587
5. Ilmars Cirulis : 12200
6. Laszlo Kis-Kos : 12068
7. Janusz Kepinski : 10675
8. Garvin Gray : 10638
9. Scott Nichols : 10211
10. Charlie Neil : 10076
Players most active : Chess 960
1. Christophe Czekaj : 1224
2. Joaquim Malpalma : 916
3. Frederick Estieu : 672
4. Ilmars Cirulis : 605
5. Pavel Háse : 600
6. Sefa Sarihan : 524
7. Sandor Porkolab : 512
8. Jay Melquiades : 495
9. Christian Koch : 470
10. Rick Spangler : 447
Players most active : Big Chess
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 5583
2. Peter Willoughby : 4368
3. José Carrizo : 3319
4. Thibault de Vassal : 3199
5. Mark Noble : 2949
6. Sandor Porkolab : 2467
7. Volker Koslowski : 1887
8. Paul König : 1790
9. William Taylor : 1706
10. Ranganathan Raman : 1620
Players most active : Poker Holdem
1. Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff : 111119
2. Rolf Staggat : 75570
3. Stephane Legrand : 41639
4. Anderson Barradas : 38671
5. Scott Nichols : 36500
6. Findlay Murray : 33008
7. Mark Noble : 31172
8. Volker Koslowski : 25829
9. Michael Sharland : 20721
10. Francisco Gramajo : 20431
Congrats Heinz-Georg, definitely you're the most addicted player ;)
Wilhelm Schuett (2009-06-27 19:45:23)
Armenian Variation
1.e4 e6 2.d4 d5 3.Nc3 Bb4 4.e5 c5 5.a3 Ba5 is a good idea. I never played it before. Even with the white pieces. But White has to be prepared.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-06-22 16:41:00)
Discussion at Rybkachess
That's an interesting discussion... Once more, the confusion reigns between Freestyle chess (commonly played at classical & blitz time controls) and Correspondence Chess, particularly for centaur players who did not experience correspondence chess at a 2500+ level.
IMO (in brief) on several points :
1) All these made-for-engines books have no other interest than to "manipulate" chess engines & other made-for-engines books, actually this has almost nothing to do with correspondence chess (where they are completely useless at a high level, let's say 2300+) or even chess.
2) Many players do not realize the multitude of factors that appear to be more important that the basic strength of centaurs once the correspondence chess 2400 mark is reached and that still increases at 2500 and 2600... The higher the level, the more "opening books" depend on the recent games played by the opponent (and his level), the number of current games played, the score to reach in 8 games matches, the importance of rating, the goal in life, even the month/season for a few players and many other things according to the persons... Actually these "openings books" just live the time to use it one time, so a better term is preparation, actually opening books do not exist anymore in correspondence chess at a very high level, at most it may be useful against weaker players.
3) The previous point is enough to explain the rating changes of most 2400+ players ! In example...
- GM Farit Balabaev is a very experienced player who constantly has(had) more than 100 running correspondence chess games at several places for years, he's also a fast player, it is quite logical to me that he looks for quiet games and fast draws (or lose sometimes to very strong players who want to win more)
- Wolfgang Utesch, FICGS WCH finalist, like many players at one time in their life, decided that other things were more important and that correspondence chess was too time consuming, particularly once the 2500 mark has been reached...
- Eros Riccio obviously decided to win every correspondence chess competition at FICGS while playing a high number of games at several places AFTER having topped the FICGS rating list with the highest rating so far (which he did), so it is natural to look for a few quick draws in matches if 8 draws mean a victory for him (and a few rating points lost, that is quite inhuman anyway :))
- Michael Aigner tops most FICGS rating lists by playing only games at 40 days + 40 days / 10 moves time control, which is an enormous performance as obviously the longer the time control, the higher the rate of draws. I do not know how many current games he's playing at ICCF or IECG and other organisations but I suspect he plays a quite reasonable number of games.
- Xavier Pichelin may top the FICGS rating list this year as he's an incredibly dangerous player with White and Black and with a reasonable number of running games.
Many strong players also choose to play some tournaments for "fun" or to experiment openings and may lose some points while their real strength is over 2500 or more... so it is quite hard to make the difference between the real strength and correspondence chess ratings. So many parameters... It is likely that we'll see one day a 12 games match between Eros and Xavier (Michael do not play fast correspondence chess time control, yet I hope), we all wonder what rating could achieve Vasik Rajlich (Rybka's creator) and other very strong freestyle players but it is very hard to predict only by knowing their results in freestyle tournaments. Correspondence chess is a mirror of real life.
Marc Lacrosse (2009-06-19 23:24:59)
FICGS commented on rybkachess
Quite a few comments regarding FICGS and correspondence chess opening preparation in this recent thread on rybkachess forum :
http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?pid=165142;msg=ReplyPost
Your opinion ?
Marc
William Taylor (2009-05-03 01:36:13)
Team tournament ethics
Good question Don. In OTB team tournaments team members might help each other to prepare for an opponent before the game, but of course couldn't help during the game. I'm not sure if we'll know who our opponents are before the games have started here, so that approach may not be possible. It would be nice to have some sort of cooperation, but one thing that should be avoided IMO is a strong player getting 3 weaker team members and essentially playing their games for them.
Normajean Yates (2009-05-01 04:06:00)
sorry+thanks Sophie - but: its still 9..
but it is still 9 [half-]moves because the mate is on white's 5th move, so 5 white-moves + 4 black-moves, = 9 [half-]moves.
If you see, yours and Philip's solutions are essentially minor variants of each other...
In Sophie's solution, 2..h14 is of couse an easily repaired mistype [2..h14 is not possible, you see]- one can just replace it by say 2..a14.
Thibault de Vassal (2009-02-28 03:35:14)
Svante Carl wins FICGS Go WCH (again)
Congratulations to Svante Carl von Erichsen who keeps the FICGS Go champion title by beating Ke Lu 5d on an impressive 5-0 score, also reaching a rating of 2653 !
A rematch just started between our two top Go players, as Ke Lu convincingly won the 3rd FICGS Go WCH preliminary tournament by 7/7
You can follow the games here :
http://www.ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=tournament&tournament=FICGS__GO__WORLD_CHAMPIONSHIP__000003
Svante Carl kindly accepted to answer a few questions on his match :
FICGS - Hello Svante Carl, first of all congratulations for your win in the FICGS correspondence Go championship final. Your opponent was Ke Lu 5 dan, you won 4 games out of 5 already (the last game is not finished yet), how do you explain such a result?
Svante Carl - Hello! Thank you very much! It is certainly astonishing for me that I was able to hold my own in these games. I believe that the main factor that helped me in getting on even terms with such a strong player was that I could spend much more time analyzing each move than in a face-to-face or online direct playing situation.
FICGS - Did you have a particular preparation or plan before to start the games?
Svante Carl - The only things I planned beforehand was to really give my best, and to make the games as distinct as possible.
FICGS - The site will now try to attract more correspondence Go players from Asia (with a few chinese, japanese or korean words on the home page already), what do you think about the games format played at FICGS (30 days + 1 day / move, chinese rules komi 7.5 points) and the championship rules?
Svante Carl - I like the format. I am also interested in the rules of Go as well as the rules that surround Go, like tournament rules and time settings. My current conviction is that the "real, pure" Go rules are area rules with superko, and territory rules should be seen as a shortcut which should give the same result. I have come to think that the "Taiwan rule", i.e. White gets a point of compensation if Black got the last play (before the first pass), is a sensible part of the rules. FICGS has taken a very easy route by declaring the rule set and leaving negotiation of the result to the players. While in the end, it is only important who won, I think that showing a result as e.g. "White+3", "Black+Resign" adds a lot of flavour. As a time system, I think that bonus time (a.k.a. Fischer time), like on FICGS, is a very general and sensible approach to timing a game like Go. I think that many "real-world" tournaments and internet servers will switch to that in the future, for all, blitz, speed, normal, slow, and correspondence games. The championship format is quite nice. I like the title holder/challenger way of tournament series. The only thing I would like to see is some sort of nigiri to determine the colours in the odd game. Attracting players from Asia is really a worthwhile goal. I look forward to playing players from all over the world.
FICGS - Does correspondence Go bring you something more than real time Go? What is more addictive according to you?
Svante Carl - Since I think that analyzing is a forte of mine, I might be a bit stronger at correspondence Go than at "real time" Go. I don't think that one is more addictive than the other.
FICGS - Do you often play real time Go online? What servers do you prefer?
Svante Carl - I usually play on KGS, but not too much, perhaps one or two games per week on average, often in "bursts". KGS is quite nice, but not perfect. Sometimes I play at CyberOro, but there is much less communication; I like to watch pro games there.
FICGS - Do you use softwares that assist you in your games (FICGS rules allow this)? What do you think about computer Go in general nowadays?
Svante Carl - I only use a board or a simple SGF file viewer for analyzing. There are no playing programs that could help me. The programs have advanced quite much recently, but I think that it will still be a long time before they can beat me in an even game. Currently, most tests of these programs are against professional players with high handicaps, and I think that this is a good situation for the bots, since they get exponentially weaker the further the game is from the end -- high handicap practically eliminates the opening, their weakest spot. I would like to see more tests against amateur players at the bots' own level.
FICGS - Do you play other games (board games, video games...), what is your favourite one?
Svante Carl - Go is certainly my absolute favourite. I also know chess, although I am really weak at that. I also like "german board games", there are some really nice pearls there. In video games, well, there are also some pearls, but they get drowned by a mass of ... not so good games..., I don't waste time looking at that scene any more. I also played some online poker, but it wasn't able to keep me interested.
FICGS - Will you defend your title again against Ke Lu who also won the 3rd wch tournament?
Svante Carl - Of course, I am looking forward to that!
FICGS - Could you give us your impressions on the games, how it went from the beginning to the end, do you think that time pressure were a non-negligible factor in the result (the clocks of Ke Lu were quickly near 1 or 2 days left)?
Svante Carl - I was a bit surprised that he let his time drop to such a low level right at the beginning, perhaps he was not familiar yet with the vacancy feature at FICGS. I can't see his reasons for this, or how much time he actually could spend on his games. I was ahead in each game when it timed out, though.
I think that game 2 was quite even from the start. The skirmish in the lower left resulted in me capturing a little group, but he got a nice framework on the lower side. My prospects of reducing this were a bit hampered by the fact that my right side group was not completely settled. I found a way to sacrifice some stones to settle my group while fixing the framework's extent and keeping sente to secure my top side, at which time, the game was still almost even, but I think that I was a few points ahead then. Later, I could seal the top side with some extra points through some rather blunt forcing moves.
In game 3, my opponent made an approach with White 24 that is usually regarded as bad in this situation, because the pincer Black 25 works out very well in conjunction with the stone on the left side. He tried to settle with White 26, but I refused to make things so easy, even though the result from the usual joseki would not have been bad. He resisted Black 27, but I think that White 28 is an overplay. The resulting fight left me with nice profit in that corner and sente, while he made some centre thickness. I then tried to carefully neutralize this thickness, but I may have played some slack moves in the course. Later, I was able to keep a little moyo in the lower right centre, and then I poked into his right-side territory where he had left a serious weakness earlier.
Game 1 started out with an interesting fight in the upper right. After White 42, both the three captured black and the two almost captured white stones retain some serious aji, which I came back to fix on my side a few moves later. When I could set up a splitting attack with Black 77, he was able to connect his two weak groups, but in bad shape. I continued to keep this dragon separated from the top, planning to invade the top side afterwards. However, with White 110, instead of connecting by playing B6, he saved some centre stones, and I proceeded to separate and kill the dragon. He may have overlooked that my upper left side group was still able to live after 110 and 111.
In game 4, after White 22, Black's stones on the left side have a strange relation. The three stones in the corner are a bit far from C10, but putting another move here is way too slow. He tried to remedy this situation with the following moves. After Black 27, there are weaknesses left in both sides' shape. When I entered with White 32, I thought that his weakness at F13 would let me settle easily, but he attacked very hard. After White 60, there are some weaknesses in my shape, but he also has a weakish group in the centre. Playing at K10 with White 76 before taking the two stones with H2 felt very important to me. At move 94, I couldn't find a good move to complete my moyo at the top, but I thought that I had found a good point to invade. This was much harder than I thought, since after Black 95, the 3-3 point fails to live. With 96 and 98, I thought that I would get a ko, but he played a line that I had excluded earlier on account of too many cuts in Black's outside shape. However, with Black 107, he made things very difficult for me, since cutting at P16 doesn't work out too well -- my inside group doesn't have enough liberties. I cut at Q14 instead with the hope to at least get some outside forcing opportunities that might have been able to keep me in the game. I think that Black 115 should have been at R12, because after White 116, R12 and N16 have become miai. Black 117 just doesn't work at all. I really got lucky in the end here. These impressions are naturally one-sided, and I would be really interested what stronger players might say about these games.
FICGS - Thank you very much and have good games !
Svante Carl - Thank you!
Thibault de Vassal (2009-01-17 14:25:37)
Problem fixed
Hello all... Sorry about this 12 hours problem :/
There was a minor problem with MySql during the night, when I rebooted the server, it seems that the games table crashed and I just did not notice it .. my entire fault.
The table has been repaired and 12 hours have been added to players expected to move.
Sorry again.
Don Groves (2009-01-12 22:50:39)
Cheating?
Hello, Tom -- It seems to me that "cheating" is defined as doing something that is against the rules of the game. Here, the rules specify that engines may be used, so using them is not cheating.
I understand your concern about players letting an engine play their games for them, but I don't think many here do that. I think the players here generally use engines to do deep analysis of moves they themselves have selected, not to select all the moves via the engine. Otherwise, there is no learning and the player is only harming him- or herself. This is only my opinion, of course.
Another point to consider: all top players in tournaments have advisers that help them prepare lines and analyze games during adjournments. And they all use engines as part of this process. Do you consider this practice to be cheating?
Thibault de Vassal (2008-12-24 14:19:19)
Pichelin - Utesch
Hi Wolfgang. Congratulations... Two very different styles to meet in a marathon 12 games match ! .. I'm impatient to see it.
Have a nice preparation :)
Merry Christmas to you all.
Wolfgang Utesch (2008-12-01 18:53:45)
Why not both strategies ?
I have been surprised also about my opponent's strategy - 4 games the same opening - but it can work sometimes. I don't know whether another strategy would have been better? I think Francois has been surprised also about my answer 1.e4 e5 four times. In the past I prefered 1.e4 c5 mostly. The openings beside Marshall attack for the other games has been very well prepared by my opponent.
Normajean Yates (2008-11-07 08:44:13)
0-0 rather than O-O in wikichess..
Some people have mistakenly put in 0-0 [zero-zero] rather than O-O [Oh-Oh] in wikichess lines for short castling. As a result, the diagram does not show castling after 0-0, but it seems the contributors forgot to notice.
I rectified *one* of them, but a 'batch mode' repair of this by thibault is needed - this error might have crept in in so many lines, and might keep creeping in in the future also ..
Normajean Yates (2008-10-26 00:13:03)
Aigner, the book is *here*!
Book for latvian? it seems they get outdated nowadays before they get published.. there is Kosten's book, ECO, ..., etc. Good to have them at hand, but it looks like all the lines have got outdated! Best is to search internet - and look at posts specially llmars's posts - here..
Interesting, your draw -- so the only way to draw with black against llmars in the latvian gambit is - no preparation! :)
Michael Aigner (2008-10-24 19:38:43)
The only draw wa a lucky one!
Unfortunately I have to say that my draw against Ilmars was lucky becaus he mixed two moves. Until that White was clearly better. I played my games without any information about the openeing theory of the lavtian gambit - only brief analysis. Now I can say this is not enough to defend this opening. On the other hand there might be ways to survive with black if one knows ideas, plans, opening theory .... Is there any good book with more or less reliable analysis of this opening? Next time better opening preparation is definately needed ;-)
Thibault de Vassal (2008-08-16 12:29:32)
Questions to Xavier Pichelin
Xavier Pichelin is 1st FICGS chess champion after beating IM Gino Figlio in the first candidates final, he accepted to talk about his match, the tournament, his views around correspondence chess, chess engines and so on... The most important part may be he'll defend his title against the winner of the 2nd candidates final :)
Unfortunately, the complete interview is in french only as he doesn't speak english, but if someone finds a good translator (if possible better than Babelfish), he may post it in this thread. Thanks !
- Bonjour Xavier et tout d'abord félicitations pour ta victoire dans le match qui t'opposait au MI (ICCF) Gino Figlio [Pérou] dans la finale des candidats. Tu devais éviter à tout prix la nulle dans toutes les parties, finalement les noirs t'ont porté chance, comment expliques-tu ce résultat ?
Xavier : Bonjour, merci pour les félicitations. C'est vrai qu'en cas de nulles pour toutes les parties, le règlement indique Figlio Vainqueur en cas d'égalité avec victoire(s) et défaite(s) je remporte le match. Donc il fallait que je prenne des risques en attaquant et c'est avec les noirs que je l'ai fait car je pensais que Gino, dans ces parties, attendrait sans prendre de risques pour assurer les nulles.
- Peux-tu nous décrire la manière dont tu as abordé ce match contre Gino et son déroulement au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu ?
X : C'est assez simple, dans ce match je n'étais pas du tout favori car avec plus de 200 points ELO FICGS en ma défaveur, et Gino titré Maître International avec plus de 2480 point ELO ICCF, je pensais que je n'allais pas résister sur 8 parties simultanées car sur une partie tout est possible mais sur 8 parties... c'était pour moi un grand défi ! Pour le déroulement du jeu j'ai joué la diversité sur mes débuts avec les blancs 4 parties 4 coups différents : 1.e4 1.d4 1.c4 1.Cf3. Gino a fait de même : 1.e4 1.d4 1.Cf3 1.Cc3. Ce qui m'a fait douter aussi car 1.Cc3 m'a surpris, je pensais qu'il avait prévu un début tonitruand et c'est là que je me suis dit qu'il fallait que je prenne des risques avec les noirs. Au fur et à mesure des différentes phases du jeu j'ai assuré les nulles des positions équilibrées pour me concacrer a deux parties avantageuses dont une avec les blancs et une avec les noirs pour au moins faire la différence dans une partie pour assurer la victoire. Et en fin de compte c'est 3 victoires qui me reviennent, ce qui me paraissait impossible étant donnée la qualité du jeu de Gino joué sur ce site pour arriver à la finale des candidats du championnat.
- Tu as réalisé pendant le championnat un parcours sans faute, aucune défaite à signaler, tu affiches également des statistiques stratosphériques à 78% contre une moyenne elo à près de 2200, quel est ton secret ?
X : Mon secret? Je n'ai pas de secret. Si j'avais un secret je ne le dévoilerais pas sinon je ne gagnerais plus ! Je pense que j'ai eu un petit peu de chance car il s'en est fallu de peu que je ne sois pas qualifié au stage 3 (robin-round final) car il y avait 3 joueurs à égalité et j'ai eu l'avantage du classement du départ de ce tournoi comme l'indique le règlement. Quant à mes statistiques, c'est aussi grâce aux erreurs de mes adversaires qui m'ont permis de gagner des parties équilibrées.
- Que penses-tu du système mi-ko, mi-toutes-rondes du championnat FICGS et de ses départages inédits lors des matchs en 8 parties ? Quelles modifications y apporterais-tu ?
X : Très bonne question ! Le système mi-ko pour moi est un peu trop rapide car un coup par jour c'est des heures d'analyses pour exploiter une position compliquée, ce qui est difficile quand on à plusieurs parties en cours. Surtout quand on travaille. C'est peut-être aussi grâce à cette cadence que mes adversaires, faute de temps, ont fait des imprécisions sur certaines postions ou exploité mes erreurs. Mais cette cadence a un avantage par rapport aux cadences ICCF qui est de 5 jours par coup, c'est que les parties durent 5 fois moins longtemps ! Le départage inédit des matchs en 8 parties est excellent, obliger le favori à assurer tous les matchs nulles pour gagner ce duel et sinon d'obtenir une victoire supplémentaire contre le challenger est un mode très bien pensé. La modification que je pourrais y apporter est peut-être la gestion du temps qui est rapide pour un système de jeu par serveur. Peut-être augmenter l'horloge de départ de 15 jours, soit de commencer avec 45 jours contre 30 en ce moment. Et aussi la possibilité des prendre des vacances uniquement sur le tournoi en cours afin de gérer les autres parties du site. Par exemple prendre 7 jours de vacances sur un tournoi d'échecs du championnat et pouvoir jouer un tournoi de Big Chess, de Go ou un autre tournoi d'échecs pendant ces vacances. Pouvoir choisir une date de début de vacances à l'avance serait également appréciable.
- Pourquoi t'être investi dans les échecs par correspondance ? T'apportent-ils d'autres satisfactions par rapport aux échecs classiques et au blitz ?
X : Je préfère les échecs par correspondance par rapport au temps. Car les échecs classiques se jouent souvent le week-end, à une heure précise et souvent en déplacement pour effectuer un tournoi. L'avantage, pour moi, des échecs par correspondance est que je puisse me connecter à n'importe quelle heure pour jouer mes coups, ce qui me permet, par exemple, de faire des repas de famille le week-end et le soir tard de jouer un coup, ce qui n'est pas possible aux échecs classiques.
- Tu as su ne pas céder à la tentation et te limiter à jouer un nombre très raisonnable de parties sur le site tout le long du championnat, penses-tu néanmoins que les échecs par correspondance soient addictifs et à quel point ? Ont-ils des répercussions sur ta vie de tous les jours ?
X : Oui ! Limiter mon nombre de parties en cours est pour moi essentiel pour essayer d'avoir des parties de qualité plutôt que de quantité. Avoir beaucoup de parties en simultanée est quand même une chose très difficile à gérer ! C'est peut-être la clé de ma victoire contre Figlio, j'ai regardé ses parties en cours, il en avait pas loin de 90 sur le site de l'ICCF, cela a pu se ressentir sur son temps d'analyse consacré à nos 8 parties sur FICGS. Sur la vie de tous les jours les répercussions sont familiales car il est vrai que je passe plus de temps à analyser les parties et moins temps avec ma famille, ce qui est assez difficile pour moi. Mais quand les résultats sont là je ne regrette pas !
- Que penses-tu de la place actuelle des moteurs d'analyse (Rybka, Shredder, Fritz et autres) dans les échecs par correspondance ? Quelles sont pour toi les qualités complémentaires essentielles du joueur par correspondance, devenu centaure avec la machine pour jambes ?
X : Les moteurs d'analyses dans les échecs par correspondances sont utilisés par 95% des joueurs... Maintenant il faut s'adapter et savoir utiliser ces machines à calculer. Car jouer simplement le meilleur coup de Rybka 3, de Fritz 12 ou Hiarcs 12 sans réfléchir mentalement mène à la nulle si l'adversaire fait de même ou possiblement à perdre si l'adversaire se donne la peine de réfléchir en les utilisant également. En sachant que lorsqu'on est dans le milieu de partie ces logiciels vous donnent souvent 4 à 5 coups evalués de manière semblable, et c'est là qu'il faut choisir le bon coup alors que celui-ci n'est même pas forcément cité par le moteur d'analyse...
- Tu joues désormais au Big Chess sur le site, curiosité ou intérêt ? Que penses-tu de cette version étrange des échecs ?
X : Par curiosité et par amusement et je pense que Rybka 3 ne joue pas encore au Big Chess ! Cette version est quasiment inédite je ne connaissais pas cette forme de jeu d'échecs auparavant donc celui qui a inventé ce jeu a très bien fait ! A propos c'est moi qui vous pose une question sur le Big chess... Y a t-il possiblité de roquer avec ce jeu si oui comment? (NDLR : Non, il est impossible de roquer au Big Chess)
- Et enfin la question que tout le monde se pose, particulièrement François et Wolfgang qui disputent la deuxième finale des candidats, penses-tu pouvoir défendre ton titre l'an prochain ? :)
X : Bien sûr ! Je défendrai le titre ! J'aimerais si possible savoir la date et la cadence du match. Et je souhaite à François et Wolfgang une belle finale ! Je dois faire honneur à cette compétition qui est bien organisée !
- Le match devrait pouvoir débuter durant la première semaine de janvier 2009, la cadence sera à nouveau de 30 jours et 1 jour supplémentaire par coup. Merci pour tes réponses, et encore bravo pour cette belle performance !
X : Merci ! Et à bientôt ! Bonne continuation à tous et bonnes parties !
Marc Lacrosse (2008-07-28 15:59:14)
I see ...
Hi Thibault
OK I see : you were happy (as I am) with four draws in one single well-prepared line as Black but went on missing the qualification as your four white games were also drawn (and Farit's rating was superior to yours).
Maybe I will suffer the same fate ...
But as i have to win at least one game I feel this is easier to achieve with white ...
As white I am busy varying the positions a little and trying to play more actively ...
We will see...
By the way I think that the rule according which the highest rating is qualified in case of eight draws is really a significant advantage ...
... but i agree that we need a way to adjudicate drawn matches.
Marc
Marc Lacrosse (2008-07-27 19:36:41)
The specifics of match play ...
Tanks to FICGS championships interesting formula I just entered Wch 005 in a quarter final 8-games match (against GM Balabaev).
This is the first time I have to play several simultaneous games against the same opponent in correspondence play.
There are interesting questions related to this unusual kind of tournament.
First of all, what kind of opening(s) should you play, and more precisely is it better to vary or to go for the same opening in several games?
Having had a look at my opponents former games I had prepared quite a few options.
As Black I decided to rely on my favorite Bc5 sicilian defence
Four identical games developped and very soon it appeared that these games should be decisive for the whole match
For long I was afraid that my opponent could come with some decisive prepared analysis leading to a 4-0 lead ...
But the opposite happened and all four games ended (draw by position repetition) before I had left my opening prep, after less than one month of play.
Thus I am left with four games where I am white
A considerable advantage IMHO ...
On this precise topic I wonder what is the opinion of top players here : is it better to be the one who vary early or should you go along your favorite analysis as long as your opponent won't diverge himself in case of match play
I have never read anything on this topic anywhere ...
Marc
Jason Repa (2008-06-17 00:45:04)
Quote
It does sound very nice. But is it really true?
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 08:34:35)
Senility is a terrible thing
How long are you going to keep whining and crying here groves? If I had any doubt about the accuracy of my comments, it would certainly be removed after this emotional protest from you. You're extremely pathetic, even for the standards of a geriatric imbecile. First you say that you won't be posting in this thread anymore, then you prove to everyone reading this that you're a bold-faced liar, in addition to everything else that has been said about you. I proved how patently stupid you are, in point by point form. You don't even realize that you've contradicted yourself repeatedly. You can't even remember your own words.
Do yourself, your family, and society a favor little man, and see someone about euthanasia.
Don Groves (2008-06-10 08:05:43)
Brackets
Sometimes truth hurts, repa, but your opinions most certainly are not truth. Your rants about me are simply the opinions of one person who seems to believe that belittling others makes himself seem more important by comparison. There's a word for someone who mistakes his own opinions for facts: delusional. From what I've seen of most of your posts on FICGS, it fits you perfectly. Ta ta.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 07:14:50)
Senility is a terrible thing
I thought you said you were done posting in this thread, groves? In addition to being an intellectually-deficient cretin, you prove yourself to be a liar as well.
Everything I said about you is true and accurate and you know it. That's why you're so frustrated. The truth hurts.
Don Groves (2008-06-10 06:42:54)
Whining, etc...
You call it whining and blabbering and yet you respond to it. What kind of person responds to the blabbering of a senile old man, eh, repa? Everything you write says far more about yourself than it does about me, or whoever happens to be your target du jour.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 04:52:22)
Senility is a terrible thing
"Ah, here they come -- the insults so typical of you"
Sorry groves, but I was simply stating facts. It's difficult to find anything to say about you that you won't construe as an "insult". Everything that has spewed out of your keyboard thus far is evidence of your complete lack of reasoning ability, and very modest IQ.
"I thought I remembered 150. If that's not correct you have my sincere apology"
You "think" a lot of nonsense that isn't true, groves. This is nothing new.
"-- add the condition that, in order to qualify for the exception, the player must be within 25 ELO of the next higher classification"
I realize that with your condition you can scarcely recall your own words from moments ago, but it was YOUR idea that the player in question be seeded into the higher rating classification event REGARDLESS of their rating. So now the little light bulb went on in that melon head of yours and you now realize what I was telling you earlier....about there being no guarantee that the tournament winner is rated near the top of his classification? If you're going to change what you proposed earlier, and only allow players who are within 25 elo of the higher classification, what's the point of it? You might as well let him get the remaining 25 elo on his own and enter the higher classification event normally.
I'm so sorry I made you repeat yourself.
You're doing an awful lot of apologizing, groves. Your very existence seems to be one big apology. I'm sure quite a few people in your life have to repeat themselves, ad nauseum, for your benefit.
"You can have the last word now"
The last word should have been my previous post. As usual, you've contributed nothing of value here. Just more pathetic whining and blabbering, as per usual.
Jason Repa (2008-06-10 01:03:04)
Free entry into unqualified tournaments
As for the discussion of allowing lower rated players to play in events with higher rated players after winning a tournament.....such a thing already exists. They're called FICGS Championships!
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 11:05:13)
Brackets - Chess and Go
"Thanks for your reasoned response"
Somehow I don't think you know the meaning of the word "reason", groves.
"(1) Having one lower rated player in a group of seven does not seem to me to be much of a dilution"
It is very much a dilution. As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Also, remember that this player is at or very near the top of the next lower rated group"
Total rubbish. You just finished saying, in your previous post, that you propose to allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification REGARDLESS of his/her rating. There is no certainty that the winner of the tournament will be near the top of the next lower rated group. They could very well be at the bottom of the next lower rated group, as I often was, as were many others, when I won tournaments.
"and again, this doesn't seem like a large enough disparity to be of concern."
And AGAIN, As I just finished explaining to you, it will not only make it more difficult for the other players in the tournament who legitimately qualify to be there by rating, to acquire the rating points necessary to get to the next level, but it will lower the overall rating average and effect the awarding of norms.
"Thibault instituted a rule that losing to a lower rated player only counts as a loss to someone a maximum of 150 ELO below"
Where did you get the 150 ELO figure from? I was under the impression it was a 200 ELO ceiling. Not that this has any relevance in terms of supporting your position anyway.
"The new rule could easily specify that no more than one lower rated player may enter any given tournament."
I just finished explaining to you that there is no guarantee that the "M" class tournaments will end at the same time as the "A" class tournaments. Not only do "M" class players tend to take the game more seriously and move slower, but there are more "A" class players than "M" so it takes longer to fill an "M" class list, hence less "M" class tournaments are played. If you propose to have only one "A" class player sent to an "M" class tournament at a time, then you'll quickly accumulate a waiting list backlog of "A" class players waiting to be seeded into a tournament they don't legitimately qualify for, stretching for decades. The other reasons I mentioned are MORE than enough reason to ditch this suggestion. This is just gravy.
Additionally, and once again, as I just finished explaining to you, if someone is winning tournaments, they're gaining rating points and will soon be able to qualify for the new rating category through legitimate means. So there is no reason at all to provide such "handouts".
I hope I don't have to repeat myself a third time here. It seems quite silly that you don't yet understand the simple and logical truth of what has been explained to you.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 08:12:28)
Brackets - both Chess and Go
" -- allow the winner of a tournament to qualify for the next higher classification regardless of his/her rating."
This idea seems interesting, on the surface, but on closer inspection it's not feasible. The FICGS tournament categories are dependent on certain rating averages that determine the level of points required in order to achieve norms for various FICGS titles, starting at class "M" and higher. Throwing in lower rated players would dilute the rating average of the entire tournament. It's also unfair to the rest of the players in that tournament who are legitimately qualified to be there. They are forced to play a lower rated opponent artificially and now THEY are at a big disadvantage in their attempt to gain the points required to get to the next level.
Additionally, I don't think groves thought about this long enough to realize that there is no guarantee that each "A" level tournament will end precisely as each "M" level tournament does. What if two "A" level events are completed in the time it takes for one "M" level event to finish, which isn't an unreasonable possibility as the "M" level players generally take the game more seriously and tend to use their time more? Should we then throw in TWO players into an "M" level event that don't deserve to be there? At any rate, it's a poor idea. If someone is winning tournaments, they're definitely gaining rating points and will qualify legitimately for the next rating level soon enough.
Jason Repa (2008-06-09 00:22:32)
Rapid chess entry rating
If you're not bright enough to figure out how to look up someone's rating, you better stick to "engine-assisted" chess. I'd probably beat you blindfolded in chess where you have to come up with the moves using your own mind. You're not even intelligent enough to figure out how to spell someone's name, when the spelling of it is right in front of you.
And for someone who doesn't want to engage in insults, you sure are doing a good job of insulting. Nice of you to "claim" I wouldn't accept your "challenge" of playing match games, before you even make the challenge. Obviously it's YOU who's backing down from match games with me, under the pretense of not having any time to play. What sheer nonsense. You seem to have a lot of free time on your hands....enough to blabber away with numerous forum posts where you whine about not being able to make it to 2300.
I'm challenging YOU to some human mind vs human mind chess on the playchess server right now. You can get a free trial account there (if you don't already have an account) in about 2 minutes. For a guy who's incessantly bickering about Rybka hurting your performance, you should love having the opportunity to prove to everyone reading this that you're not the spineless hypocrite coward I'm claiming you are and step up to the plate to play me some fast (so rybka or other engines cannot be consulted) online games.
Nice of you to tell us you have problems, but it was already obvious.
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 20:37:40)
Rapid chess entry rating
No, Lowrance, you're the one missing the point here. And you're using engine assistance as much as anyone here, so don't pretend like you're somehow at a disadvantage. I've played you, and you're 100% program. Perhaps that's the problem.
Thibault mentioned once that a weak player running Rybka can get to around 2100 or so. To get beyond that requires some chess knowledge. While he may not be precisely accurate about the number....perhaps it's 2200 instead......nonetheless, the point is accurate. Everyone who's above 2000 on this site is consulting chess engines, but in corr. chess simply running a program alone is not the strongest way to play. You make it sound as though Rybka plays the perfect chess game. If that were the case everyone on this site would be rated about the same. It should be quite obvious to you that to go from 2300 to 2400 is much more difficult than going from 2200-2300. As a higher rated player, you get less points for winning or drawing, and lose more when you lose. As for your chances against 2400 players being the same as against 2100 players, that's pure nonsense. You'd be lucky to get the occasional draw against a 2400 player, (one who's really earned their rating and not just started with an artificially high rating as is the case with more than a few on this site) whilst you will lost most of those games. A higher rated player is higher rated for a reason. They win more games.
The correct spelling of my name should also be obvious to you, as it's on the same page that you're entering text into.
Jason Repa (2008-06-08 11:09:30)
Nickel vs Hydra
I believe that Nickel used various chess engines to assist him with error-checking and analysis, similar to what any good corr. player does.
I especially liked the game where Nickel beat Hydra with the Black side of a French Tarrasch
Wayne Lowrance (2008-06-08 06:24:35)
Rapid chess entry rating
Jayson Repa has a point but I think he is missing my point. If Engine help was not allowed, I would agree 100%. But with engine help, in practice mostly Rybka, a 2100 player is grossly under rated, I mean gross. So that is a huge barrier to overcome for a 2200+ rated player. It is not obvious that a 2300 player climbing the ranks against 2400 players has a larger barrier than a 2200 player reaching 2300. \The point I am making is: It matters little the ratings in correspondence chess with very very long time controls. Rybka does not know or care, the lil girl just makes best moves anyhow. The skill comes in when the human selects the best opening and is the most capable of steering his engine consistant with his chess knowledge. Heck Mr Repa I would love to play 2400 players, my chance of loosing is no greater than losing to a 2100 player, both would be using Rybka or engine of their choice. With respect sir Wayne
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 21:22:00)
Poker
Here we go again eh groves? You're a bored old man with no purpose in life other than to harass and annoy people on the internet.
Ah, I get it, you couldn’t cut it in chess, so you ran to Go, lol. But you can’t play that game either, so what’s it going to be next....tic tac toe? Unlike you, groves, I don’t have all day to sit around and play games. My gaming time is limited to chess and poker.
Perhaps it’s true what has been said about how people of a very advanced age start to become like children again. It’s especially sad when you’re dealing with someone who was less than impressive, even at their peak.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:56:31)
Poker
I don't "think" 1300 is a mediocre Go rating, any more than I "think" 1600 is a mediocre chess rating. But a guy like you is used to being below average at the things you do, so I guess you're comfortable with that.
I've proven myself for years at live OTB chess with no computer assistance whatsoever little guy. You're only making a fool of yourself with such comments. I'm in the top 1% of all tournament chess players in my province at slow chess. And I'm a several time provincial champion at blitz chess.
Did I use any words too complex for you to understand in my previous post? I tried to explain to you what goes into making poker decisions, in the way a 4 year old should be able to understand. Was I overly optimistic?
Don Groves (2008-06-04 20:50:02)
Poker
Yada, yada, more of the same from Repa. If you think 1300 is such a poor Go rating, let's see what you can do. We know you're great at computer-aided Chess, maybe that will translate well to Go. We really do need more good Go players here. There are Go programs that play at or above my current level. You could use one and get a head start.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 20:22:20)
Poker
No, your ability to understand simple concepts is what is weak here groves. You keep whining that your paltry 1600 chess rating shouldn't matter because you haven't played chess in a couple of years, but what difference does that make? Are elo points easier to obtain now? And what about Go? You play that game regularly, yet you have a pathetic 1300 rating at that as well. You better open a window before you think up another lame excuse....I wouldn't want you to die from smoke inhalation.
I don't know how many times I need to keep repeating myself in order for the point to penetrate your skull, but your comment about "mastering the mechanics" of the game is pure nonsense. You speak as if the entirety of poker theory can be equated to memorizing basic strategy in blackjack. You seem to think the discussion of calculating EV is based purely on figuring out pot-odds and how that relates to the number of outs, etc, but if you had the incipience of a clue about the game you'd realize that there is much MORE involved than that. Poker is an information game and all the information you have at your disposal, such as the temperament and mood of your opponent(s), your perceived table image (or at least your interpretation of it), the history of the action that has occurred so far, the tells that you pick up and the false tells that you may be sending to your opponents, etc, goes into the calculation of the EV on any given play. The better a player is able to conduct these evaluations and convert them into value, at least intuitively....the better a poker player they are. Even online poker has some tell/false-tell action as the response time can be varied.
Re-read my previous post where I mentioned that mistakes can take various forms. I clearly state, and in simple terms such that even you should be able to grasp, that there is more to the game than straightforward arithmetic calculations.
And I realize that you don't work, but geez, can you not find something better to do with your time than try to provoke people on the internet? Why don't you use all that free time you have on your hands to learn how to play Chess or Go beyond the level of a rank beginner?
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 19:32:31)
Pi
I just noticed the entire movie (divided into 4 parts) can be viewed for free on utube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UY1P-9xj_GA&feature=related
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 19:21:48)
Poker
As was just explained to you, groves, you're not a 1600 chess player as the result of "bad luck". You have the rating you do for a reason. The fact that you're not intelligent enough to get your chess rating up to even a modest level does indeed relate to your inability to understand concepts in other areas. Go back to your original post and try to understand what this "discussion" is all about. It's about the fact that you can't comprehend my statement that poker is a game which involves more than just knowing when to bluff and managing your money. I even went so far as to try to explain the concept of EV to you as I wasn't confident you would figure out how to look that up on your own.
What's very telling here is that all of my posts contain discussion of poker whereas your just keep trying to be offensive and whining about how you feel "insulted" when I've done nothing but state objective facts about you. I suppose referring to you as a 1600 chess player is also an "insult" Your last two posts are completely devoid of any discussion of poker whatsoever.
I'd tell you to grow up, groves, but at your age I think it's a bit too late for you.
Don Groves (2008-06-04 18:58:24)
Poker
Repa, there you go again, bringing my Chess rating into something it has nothing to do with. I haven't played Chess in over two years but you still keep bringing it up. You do that so often it could make others think you define yourself in terms of ratings. Look up "argumentum ad hominem." You're very good at it -- so good you should consider going into politics.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 10:02:42)
Poker
Groves, it's pretty sad if you aren't capable of understanding what you did. But in your case I suppose I shouldn't be surprised.
And I don't need to meet you in person to know what you're all about. Your words speak volumes. And FYI chess ratings aren't obtained by flipping coins. You're a mere 1600 and change player. It's not the result of "bad luck".
You equate the stating of facts with "insulting". The problem is when I'm dealing with a very modest individual like you, every objective fact I state is interpreted as an insult.
As I said, read a poker book, or get someone to read one to you so that you can learn the basics of the game. Perhaps then you'll understand that there is more to the game than simply managing your money and knowing when to bluff.
Jason Repa (2008-06-04 09:22:21)
Rapid chess entry rating
I disagree with Wayne Lowrance completely. The 2300+ rapid category is an excellent idea. Obviously it's much more difficult to go from 2300-2400 than it is to go from 2200-2300. Without the 2300+ category it's ominously difficult for a 23xx player to get to the next level.
My only complaint is that the standard list doesn't have a 2300+ category as well.
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 (2008-06-03 03:14:01)
Poker at FICGS
I've never heard of poker having an elo rating system. There is too much of a luck factor in order for that to be meaningful IMO. Obviously there is some skill in poker, but the fruits of this only manifest in the "long-run". Even top professionals have had losing periods in excess of a year in duration.
Jason Repa (2008-06-03 02:47:02)
Poker
Poker is not really poker without a monetary wager, similar to backgammon.
Unlike chess or snooker, where a brilliantly played game can be satisfaction enough, the entire point of poker is to win money (cash game) or accumulate chips (tournament) by hook or by crook. Achieving this in practice has much more to do with exploiting mistakes and emotional weaknesses in your opponents than doing anything "brilliant".
As for "Play money" poker, it's for bored housewives and people who have too much free time on their hands. These are the same people who kill time by playing solitaire.
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.
Jason Repa (2008-05-21 21:39:46)
To be or not to be
I believe in free will when I make good chess moves, fatalism when I make bad ones!?
Jason Repa (2008-05-16 21:46:50)
Erm...
The easiest way is to just get in the habit of saving all your text in the windows clipboard every new paragraph or so. (Ctrl+a then Ctrl+c).
Jason Repa (2008-05-16 00:23:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
Geez Stephenson, I thought you were done stalking and harassing me and had found something else to amuse your little mind with. Something shiny and metallic perhaps? But here you are continuing your trollish ways.
Actually, what this thread is REALLY about, is a pathetic little character who doesn't handle losing at chess very well. As was stated before, it's pretty sad that you don't have any chess games of your own worthy of publication or discussion, so you post one of mine and continue to rant, and rant, and rant about nonsense. I already BEAT YOU in chess. Quite easily, in fact. Could there be anything more ridiculous than a guy who loses at chess criticizing the play of the victor?
Normally when someone obsesses over me like this it's a female doing the obsessing. But hey, each to their own.
And yeah, it's pretty obvious you're someone with a lot of time on your hands. Nice of you to share that with us. But you only speak for yourself in that regard. Even with all your free time I was still able to beat you easily when we played chess.
Just look at this latest drivel you're posting. You go on and on and on about why I shouldn't have lost a chess game I played a year ago like this is some life and death event for you. It's really not a big deal to me. So why is MY game such a big deal to you? If you're trying to make an argument that I'm such a terrible correspondence chess player based on this game, why did I beat you so easily when you and I played? I'm also higher rated than you as well. If you're going to harass me with one of my losing games, at least have enough intelligence and imagination to vary the game once in awhile. You have 5 more to choose from.
Sorry but I've never met anyone clued out enough to put DOWN LOAD and DATA BASE before. This isn’t a minor spelling mistake or typo. This is a surprising lack of education. What’s next, “COMP -UTER”? A chess player should especially be familiar with the word DATABASE. But as I said earlier, some people mindlessly trust machines, and don't have the capacity to think for themselves. People like that like to brag about their meticulous spelling, because even a chromosome-deficient inebriate can figure out how to use spelling software. Most of us couldn't be bothered, because we realize that spelling is not important when making casual internet forum posts.
And no, Stephenson, the "point" about ELO is not dead. It's your ability to learn and understand simple concepts that appears quite dead here. This has nothing to do with me not "agreeing" with you. This has to do with objective fact. An ELO rating could be talking about GO, Backgammon, or other games, that FIDE has absolutely nothing to do with, in addition to national rating organizations. You were wrong. End of story. Continuing to defend your ignorance of the meaning of ELO is just making it all the more obvious what it is you are to everyone reading this. Again, Stephenson, LOOK IT UP.
Andrew Stephenson (2008-05-15 23:14:37)
Books and databases
This thread is really about how reliance on books and lack of research can get someone into trouble ie a lost position after 13 moves in a main line opening - even with plenty of time and powerful chess engines available. Actually its not even necessary to own an up to date database to avoid this - the resources are freely available to anyone with an internet connection. The point about ELO is dead I think referring to ELO points is associated with FIDE ratings irrespective of the fact that most national rating systems use ELO's methodology. Mr Repa does not agree - thats it. "but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base ..." I don't read anything into the omission of the word "someone" here nor the numerous spelling mistakes that have cropped up. Incidentally the book I referred to with analysis of the dodgy siscilain variation is called Experts V the Sicilian with different chapters by various GM's and IM's including a chapter on the pin variation about which one reviewer says: "we get no less than 12 pages on the “silly” Pin Variation, and in the end Aagaard seems unable to prove a certain advantage!" Whatever the truth about that variation its highly risky and not recommended for cc!
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 21:31:38)
corr. & otb
"But cc rating does not implicitly say anything about chess strength."
I disagree. But first be clear that I'm talking about correspondence chess strength. I never said that corr. chess strength has a 1 to 1 relationship with otb chess strength. I know too many guys who are better corr. players than me that I could mop the floor with at any time control in a live chess game.
But having said that, I believe that people have high corr. ratings for a reason. At a minimum they're good at employing interactive chess engine research and have good updated databases. I think overall chess knowledge and judgment are factors as well. Stronger chess moves win more games. Yes, I understand that sometimes an ambitious 1800 can beat a higher rated opponent, on occasion, but it's overall results that are important, not anomalies. The same is true otb. Sometimes experts and national masters beat GMs. That doesn't mean they're a stronger chess player than the GM.
"Do you think the playing cc helps to improve your otb abilities?"
I'm not surprised you're getting differing stories. Like anything else, it depends on how you use the experience and of course on your individual aptitude. Some people will just memorize the opening theory they learn from corr. chess, if that. Others will do much more with those games, such as developing technique, increasing their strategic knowledge, learn more endgame theory, etc. I think it is without question that corr. chess can have great benefits for your otb chess game, if used properly. Just being forced to comb through opening books and game databases alone is useful.
"OTB requires the abilities to calculate deeplines correctly and to maintain concentration for a couple of hours"
I agree that the ability to concentrate well is important for otb chess, but I think you're overvaluing calculation. The reality is that otb is all about COMPETITION. It's a mental fight. I know guys are are great analysts, and with the right hardware/software would probably be great corr. players, but they don't handle the pressures and stresses that go along with competition very well. Judgment and competence, especially while under stress and duress, are of the utmost importance in otb. You can calculate as deeply as you want, but if you're expending energy calculating lines that you should have rejected, or mismanaging your time by thinking too deeply in a spot where it's not necessary, you won't get good results in otb.
I don't have any desire to try to get anywhere near 2700 level in corr. chess. And I agree with your analysis that it would not be fun anymore and become a huge drain of time sitting behind the computer. Perhaps not unlike what a professional chess player has to go through in order to prepare for their tournaments, with the chief exception that the professional chess player gets paid for such a sacrifice.
"...for the purpose of improving the otb abilities it would have been better to study chess books and solving tactical exercises than playing cc."
I don't see why these things have to be mutually exclusive. For me I get more motivated to study my chess books and look through my databases when the positions occur in games. I also think about what I'm doing and analyze the positions using my own mind when I play corr. chess. Maybe that's not the case for everyone, but it is for me. As for tactics, I think blitz/bullet against strong opponents can be very useful for developing that.
Jason Repa (2008-05-14 00:35:54)
Re: Hannes query
I'm not "afraid" of playing anyone, and the FICGS rating points are only a means with which to play the stronger players. As I stated earlier, and in other threads, my primary interest in correspondence chess is to do research for my otb chess. Having said that I'm interested in playing the strongest players possible.
It's simple common sense that if a rating category says 2200-2600, then it should have players who are rated 2200-2600. Lower rated players are free to sign up for the category that they qualify for.
Do you play otb chess Hannes? You don't seem to have any otb rating as far as I can tell.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 22:29:00)
Boring
And what is you posting your trash here supposed to accomplish, Hannes? If this is so boring for you why are you reading it? If you have something topical to contribute, why don't you post it?
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:36:18)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What a <1500 player like yourself "has always taken" is meaningless. What is objectively true and factual is what counts. As has been explained to you repeatedly, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings, not even to chess in fact. Are you beginning to understand or still confused?
Also, there is no simple (deduct x) formula to get a FIDE equivalent. Sometimes a national rating is worth more than a FIDE rating. There are various factors to consider.
There is no "magic" about a FIDE rating. You just need to play in FIDE rated events. I've beaten many FIDE rated players otb, including FMs. It's really no big deal.
I never said 2000 was some sort of "high rating", so don't start with the lies again Stephenson. But compared to a guy like you who is rated under 1500, I'm like a more evolved being. Is that why you're so frustrated to the point of stalking me as you're doing? Is it a combination of that and the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess? When are you going to get over that? When are you going to stop whining and crying?
Why don't we play fact to face otb chess, if you have lots of Euro to throw around as you're claiming. Fly to Canada and I'll play you a match for 5000 euro. First to win 6 games or something like that. I'd probably have to spot you 5/6 just to make the match somewhat competitive.
I never challenged you to bullet chess, my <1500 rated acquaintance, but that would be the only other way to play human mind vs human mind chess. I'm certainly not about to fly to the third world country you live in, just to beat some "C" class chess player in person.
Let's take a little tally here. I've already beaten you at correspondence chess, and you've made it clear you want no part of playing chess at time controls that doesn't allow you to consult your program, so I've effectively won that as well. What is left? Arm wrestling? I kinda like my chances there too!
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 21:16:02)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
No, as I just explained to you in the way a small child should be able to understand, elo is not exclusive to FIDE ratings. Not even exclusive to chess in fact. I realized you weren't overly intelligent when we played chess and I crushed you, but this is ridiculous. This has been explained to you already. Do some research and see for yourself.
I normally don't go after someone for grammar, but when I'm dealing with who says down load and data base, I ask myself who's wiping the drool from their chin.
I'm not about to do any serious chess analysis with you. I don't give free chess lessons. Post whatever you like. It won't change the fact that I CRUSHED you in chess. Fair and square.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:25:34)
Elo rating system
I trust I didn't use any "biggie" words you were unable to comprehend Stephenson. Hopefully you now understand your error and realize that the elo system is not only peculiar to FIDE chess ratings, but indeed used by many chess organizations, as well as other games.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:15:32)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
You don't know any professional chess players Stephenson. Who are you trying to kid here? You don't even know that the word is "download" not "down load", and "database", not "data base", lol. This is the problem with a mental midget mindlessly trusting machines, as you are doing with the spelling software. It is for this reason it was so easy to beat you in chess. I only had to outplay a machine, not outsmart a human who has the ability to THINK.
If you're such a "whiz" at correspondence chess, as you keep trying to convince me, and have such wonderful databases, why did I beat you? I think saying that I beat you is even a bit of an understatement. It was more like a slaughter!
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 15:08:20)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that a <1500 otb player, such as yourself Mr. Stephenson, wouldn't be able to figure out something that any normal 6 year old child would have no difficulty with. But then again, during our chess game in which I crushed you, I had the feeling I wasn't dealing with a mental heavyweight, to put it mildly. I'll hold your hand and explain it to you since there is probably no 6 year old child where you live to help you:
The Elo rating system is a method for calculating the relative skill levels of players in two-player games such as chess, GO, backgammon, etc."Elo" is often written in capital letters (ELO), but it is not an acronym. It is the family name of the system's creator, Arpad Elo (1903–1992, born as Élő Árpád), a Hungarian-born American physics professor. The Elo rating system has been adopted by many different organizations, including the USCF, CFC, FIDE, and others, as well as various online gaming servers.
My national elo rating is indeed over 2000, Stephenson. And yours is under 1500, as you've already confirmed.
I already beat you very easily in chess Stephenson. You're the little guy with something to prove here, not me.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:43:09)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
No, it looks like my comment was a bit over your head, once again. By keeping databases up to date, I don't mean just mindlessly adding random games, as perhaps a <1500 otb player might do. I was talking about updating the database with current theory and critical lines.
What you're sure or not sure of is of no consequence. This is what chess players do.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:22:42)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
Actually, you really don't have a point Stephenson. You're a <1500 otb player with delusions of grandeur, nothing more. I've already beaten you and your chess program in correspondence chess, and I'm more than 500 elo stronger than you in otb chess, so what exactly was your "point" again?
I can't speak about what correspondence chess could do for a <1500 otb player such as yourself. But for someone with an otb rating >2000, such as myself, cc chess is valuable in many ways, not just for opening accuracy.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 14:17:46)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
I really couldn't care less what an internet troll with a <1500 otb chess rating, whom I've already crushed in correspondence chess, thinks about anything. Send emails to GM Dreev and GM Marjanovic, who have also played 13...0-0 and see if they feel differently.
Re-read my post a few times until you're able to understand what I said. Everything I stated is correct. I'm not going to hold your hand and spoon-feed everything to you.
As I said before Stephenson, it's sad that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. I've never met anyone this obsessed with me. I don't think it's very healthy for you. In more ways than one.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 13:37:50)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
It's interesting how you feel qualified to post my games for analysis, when I ALREADY BEAT YOU in chess, lol. In fact I have a perfect score against you Stephenson. I'm also higher rated than you are to boot. So what you "claim to be a great believer in" is hardly of interest to anyone.
What IS of interest is the fact that you still refuse to answer the question of what YOUR otb rating is, after being asked three times. One can only conclude that you are embarrassed about how low it is. Under 1500?
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:54:06)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
My obsessive fan is quoting my game with Bucsa Ioan played last year. Actually you have it backwards Stephenson. I trusted my database, which wasn't up to date. I wasn't even consulting an engine until around move 18, when it's already lost for Black. I thought quite a bit about alternative lines in this game, but found myself agreeing with the Psakhis analysis. That line is recommended by Psakhis in his book "French Defence - Steinitz, Classical, and other Systems". Additionally, 13...0-0 has been played by the likes of GM Dreev, as well as GM Marjanovic, as recently as 2003. But alas, it pays to keep your databases up to date for correspondence chess.
The game was a valuable learning experience for me. I'm very happy that it occurred. My otb opponents will never get me in that position as a result :)
I can't help but feel sorry for you Stephenson. Firstly I'm sorry that you don't have any of your own games worthy of publication, and that you need to vicariously live through me and post my chess games. Secondly, I'm sorry that you don't play otb chess and appreciate the joy of playing chess using your own mind. But then again, in your case, maybe that's a good thing. :)
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 12:32:23)
Repa vs Stephenson 1-0
What's clear, Stephenson, is that you're a very sad and pathetic individual. You obviously have no life whatsoever. You've been harassing me and trying to provoke me nonstop. First you start this troll behavior in the other thread....now you're doing it here as well. Is this what you do to everyone who outsmarts you and beats you in chess, as I have done?
It's one thing to follow me around from thread to thread and harass me, but the brown-nosing and whining to the admin you've been doing has made me lose all respect for you entirely. Not that I had much to begin with.
You even go so far as to obsessively comb through all of my games, just to try to find one that you think will someone embarrass or offend me. You even start a thread featuring one of my games. Obviously none of your own games are worthy of mentioning, so you focus on me and my chess games, lol. Well I have news for you Stephenson, I'm not embarrassed at all about my correspondence chess game losses (or any losses in chess for that matter). I've learned a lot more from my losses than my wins. My 6 losses on FICGS have taught me more than my 118 wins here, including the easy win against you and your chess program.
Perhaps others can benefit from my 6 losses as well. Do the FICGS community a favor and post my other five losses, not just the French Defense I played against Bucsa Ioan, that you felt warranted starting a thread to discuss.
Unlike you, I'm a real chess player. I enjoy learning and wish to take my OTB game to the next level and I believe that correspondence chess is helping me to do just that.
What is YOUR OTB chess rating? Interestingly you didn't respond to that question when it was asked of you more than once previously, lol. Big surprise!
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 11:57:26)
How to Win against the Pin!
It was a pretty easy and straightforward win for me. I didn't have to worry about human intelligence and judgment getting in the way of my victory, as is normally the case in correspondence chess. All I had to do was outsmart a chess program being run by a very weak chess player.
Jason Repa (2008-05-13 10:23:37)
Provocation
"Again I find myself in complete agreement with Thibault"
No surprise here. The brown-nosing fest continues!
Thibault, please define "transparent". The troll is continuing to harass me, even going to far as to address me by name, taking liberties and condescending with statements such as: "Jason, insults are insults, rules are rules". That is clearly both abuse AND provocation.
There are 53 results for Repa in wikichess.
William Taylor (2110)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O b5 Bb3 Bb7 Re1
The traditional main line, though d3 has gained in popularity recently. White defends e4 and prepares to follow up with c3 and d4, a typical plan in the Ruy Lopez.
============
Contributors : William Taylor
Sophie Leclerc (1573)
e4 e5 f4 Qf6 Nf3 Qxf4 Nc3 Bb4 Bc4
This prepare kingside castle.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Telmo Escobar (1929)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Bg5 e6 f4 Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5 Nc6 fxe6 fxe6 Nxc6 bxc6 e5 dxe5 Bxf6 gxf6 Ne4 Qxa2 Rd1 Be7 Be2 O-O O-O Ra7 Rf3 Rd7 Bd3 f5 Qh6 Rf7 Rg3+ Kh8 Ng5 Rg7 Nxe6 Rf7 Rf1 e4 Be2 Bd6 Rg5 Qd5 Bh5 Bc5+ Nxc5 Qxc5+ Kh1 Qc4 Rg1 Rg7 Rxf5 Rd8 Re5 Qxc2 Qf6 Qd2
Black is prepared for 35.Re7 Qg5, but-
============
Contributors : Telmo Escobar
Sophie Leclerc (1242)
e4 f5 exf5 Nf6 g4 g6 g5 Ne4 d3 Nd6 fxg6 hxg6 Bg2 Nc6 Nc3 Nf5 Nf3 d6 Bd2 Bg7
A good move too. It prepare kingside castle even if it is dangerous.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Sophie Leclerc (1200)
e4 e5 Nf3 f6 Nxe5 Ne7 Qh5+ Ng6 Nxg6
White is up a pawn and a knight and preparing a dsicoory check to gain material, taking the knight result in losing the rook. This shown was a mistake does to black in damiano defense.
============
Contributors : Sophie Leclerc
Sebastian Boehme (1836)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e6 f3 b5 g4 h6 Qd2
Preparing the queenside castle.
============
Contributors : Sebastian Boehme
Yugi Inving (1280)
e4 f5 exf5 Kf7 Qh5+ g6 fxg6+ Kg7 Bd3 Nf6 Qg5
preparing gxh7 and prevening black from taking the g6 pawn.
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving
Wilhelm Schuett (1800)
Nh3
1/Played by French amateur chess player Charles Amar in the 1930s, this opening is also known as the Drunken Knight Opening, or the Ammonia Opening (NH3 is the chemical formula of the ammonia).
There is no particular interest in choosing to play NH3, and it is therefore considered as an irregular opening. It prepares for kingside castling, but so would NF3...
2/Here is the "Sodium Attack", an very rarely opening played in profssional tournaments,the interest of this
Non-orthodoxe opening,is to control cells g5
and f4 in One also move... to prépare the attack on column f, with bishop on c1 at thé 3th.move, and to prépare the casting, so of course!
Paul,Emma& Sandra Brand-Lyard. 2021/07/24th.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Block, Normajean Yates, Florian Cafiero, PaulSandra Brand-Lyard
aka "The Sandra Lyard13061975-03081997 Inventor
Chess variants Annapurna' séries., Wilhelm Schuett
Yugi Inving (1280)
d4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Nc3 Nc6 e3 g6
Black prepare a fiancetto and since the diagonal c1-h6 is blocked by the pawn on e3, white won't be able to profite of black weakness.
============
Contributors : Yugi Inving
Telmo Escobar (2043)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Ba4 Nf6 O-O Be7 Re1 O-O c3
prepare to move d4 (Marshall Atack)
============
Contributors : Francisco Guisado, Telmo Escobar
Mike Hoogland (1760)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bb5 a6 Bxc6 dxc6 d4 exd4 Qxd4 Qxd4 Nxd4 Bd7
A very useful move. Black prepares castling long and retains the possibility of playing c5. The immidiate c5 chases away the white knight, but weakens the d5 square. White can then develop accordingly and try to take advantage of this weakness.
They say develop knights before bishops, because the bishop often does not know yet where to go. In this case the bishop knows better where to go than the knight. It only has one good square, because on g4 it can be chased away by the useful move f3. The knight on the other hand could go to d7, f6 or even h6.
Black's bishop pair, his control over d5, the fact that his pawn structure has no weaknesses and the weakness of the white pawn on e4 give black an edge.
============
Contributors : Mike Hoogland
Kieran Child (1397)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Nc6 Qh5+ g6 Nxg6 Nf6 Qh4 Rg8 Nxf8 Rg4 Qh6
Most common move, but white should really be prepared to give back the knight
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Gabriel Lewertowski (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 exd4 Nxd4 Qh4
A very tricky move, and if White is unprepared, it can come as a bit of a shock. White needs to sacrifice a pawn to reach a better position.
============
Contributors : Gabriel Lewertowski
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5 Bd2 Qxe5+ Nde2 N8c6 g3 b5 Bg2 Bb7 O-O Ng6 Re1 Qc7 Nf4 Bc5 Nxg6 hxg6 a3
White may think he will be nudging the black bishop soon, or preparing a queenside pawn assault, but ...
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5 Bd2 Qxe5+ Nde2 N8c6 g3 b5 Bg2 Bb7 O-O Ng6 Re1 Qc7 Nf4
Is White preparing an assault on the uncastled king?
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5 Bd2 Qxe5+ Nde2 N8c6 g3 b5 Bg2 Bb7 O-O Ng6
Preparing the development of the dark-squared bishop, and discouraging Bf4.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6 Nf3 c5 Bg5 cxd4 Nxd4 Qa5 Bd2 Qxe5+ Nde2 N8c6 g3 b5
Grabbing space and preparing the development of the queenside bishop.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nc3 a6
Keeps the knight off b5 and prepares for ..b5 and a fianchetto of the light-squared bishop.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bg5 c5 c3 cxd4 cxd4 Nbc6 Nf3 Qa5+ Qd2 Qxd2+ Nbxd2 Nd5
Frees a path for the dark-squared bishop and prepares a possible N-b4-c2+.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Ne2 d5 c4 Nb4 O-O Nf6 Bg5 Nxd3 Qxd3 h6 Bxf6 Qxf6 cxd5 Bd7 Nbc3 O-O-O a4 a6 Rfe1 Bd6 Qc4 Rde8 b4 Kd8 b5 a5 Rac1 Re7
Preparing to double up rooks on the e-file, if necessary.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bd3 Ng6 Be3 cxd4
Clarifying the centre, but weakening the White pawn chain a little, and preparing b4 for the dark-squared Bishop, if required.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bc4 Nf6 Nf3 d5 Bb3 Qe7+ Ne5 Nc6 Bf4 Be6 O-O Nxe5 Bxe5 O-O-O Re1 Qf7 Nc3 c6 Ba4 Ng4
Preparing to capture on e5, then set up a kingside pawn roller with ..g5 etc. Black's King attack will break through before White's.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bc4 cxd4 cxd4 Ng6 O-O a6
Preparing to release the light-squared bishop on b7.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Nf3 c5 c3 Nbc6 Bc4 cxd4
Preparing a space for the dark-squared bishop on b4.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bc4 a6
Preparing ...b5
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 e5 Ne7 Bc4
It's not clear what Bc4 achieves, besides prepare for a possible d5.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Nf3
This is probably White's best move, preparing an eventual Ne5. It places White's knight on its best square, and it avoids committing White's light-squared bishop.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 d4 Bc4
An aggressive reply to black's premature pawn push. White prepares for quick castling and hits the f7 square. By controlling d5, this move also makes the d4 pawn look vulnerable.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5 Bc4 e6
An ugly looking gambit, but one which black should be prepared to play in order to prevent an overwhelming white attack.
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Kieran Child (1600)
Nf3 d5 e4 dxe4 Ng5 f5 Bc4 Nh6 Nxh7
White takes out the last defender of the g6 square, and prepares the potentially game-winning move of Qh5+
============
Contributors : Kieran Child
Miguel Pires (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Qe2 Bc5 Nf3 d5
The ultimate challenge!!! With this line you can have beautiful and figthing games. Prepare your self to fight very hard
============
Contributors : Miguel Pires
Miguel Pires (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Qe2 Bc5 Nf3
Preparing to castle
============
Contributors : Miguel Pires
Miguel Pires (2143)
e4 e5 Bb5 c6 Ba4 Nf6 Qe2 Bc5
Developping and prepare to castle
============
Contributors : Miguel Pires
Gavin Wilson (1400)
e4 e6 d4 f5 exf5 exf5 Bd3 Nc6 Bxf5 Qf6 Qd3 Nxd4 Bxh7 Ne7 Be3 Ne6 Be4 Qxb2 Qc3 Qxc3+ Nxc3 c6
Discourages the White Knight's fork on c7 by preventing Nb5, and also prepares ..d5 and possibly even ..d4.
============
Contributors : Gavin Wilson
Ron Keyston (1522)
e4 d5 exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd6 d4 Nf6 Nf3 a6
While normally a prophylactic move such as a6 is considered to be an "amateurish" type move, it is very thematic in the Qd6 line of the Scandinavian. This move prepares Nc6 while preventing the bishop pin at b5 and also prepares for an advance of the b-pawn in the case of Bc4.
============
Contributors : Ron Keyston
Ulrich Imbeck (1200)
b3 d5
Preparing Developing
============
Contributors : Ulrich Imbeck
Benjamin Aldag (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7 Ne3 c6
c6:
Black still want to play d7-d5 and the c6 move is preparing it. White has now the choice between Nxe4 and d2-d3. The best move for white is in my opinion d2-d3, known as the Budowskys-Line.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag
Benjamin Aldag (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3 Qf7
Qf7:
G. Gunderarms Move. Black follows the gambit-style and white must be prepared in this variantion. But with a good preperation, white is playing for the full point (in my opinion). Black prepares d7-d5.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag
Benjamin Aldag (1822)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5 Qf6 Nc4 fxe4 Nc3
Qf7:
G. Gunderarms Move. Black follows the gambit-style and white must be prepared in this variantion. But with a good preperation, white is playing for the full point (in my opinion). Black prepares d7-d5.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal, Benjamin Aldag
Gregory Kohut (1783)
e4 e5 Nf3 f5 Nxe5
The beginning of the end ! Black has no moveoptions and the Qf6-Move is a MUST and not a can.
The following comment is by me (Benjamin Aldag):
The Kings Gambit was good to play in the early 80s. But with comming of good and fast computers, the Kings Gambit is researched move for move in all lines. If both players play the best moves, all white can reach is a draw. But the point is, white has the chance, to do more wrong in the opening, than black. Ok, there are some kiddy-tricks by white, but if black want an equal game, he will get it. Now letz take a look to the latvian,- the Kings Gambit with a tempo down. If the Kings Gambit is bad, why should the Latvian Gambit good for black with a tempo down ? The only way for black is to hope, that the white player isn't prepared for this gambit. There are many traps, but the basics of these traps are easy to see. Black is from beginning on under big pressure and has no dynamic play. In nearly all lines of the Latvian Gambit, black has only forced moves. From now on, i will give to all moves in all lines my commentary. Ok.... i'am not a GM, IM, or FM, but i think i know the Latvian Gambit really good.
============
Contributors : Benjamin Aldag, Gregory Kohut
David Grosdemange (1983)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 Bb5+ Nc6
It is an alternative for Black to prepare a favourable exchange with Bd7, then a6. Then White can retire by playing Bf1 (after Re1) or exchange the bishop, then black bishop have a good square in c6.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Richard Hendricks (1459)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nf3 b6 g3
White prepares to fianchetto his KB.
============
Contributors : Richard Hendricks
Larry Wolfley (2133)
d4 Nf6 c4 c5 d5 b5 cxb5 a6 b6
White declines the gambit pawn. One strategy for White against routine development by Black (i.e. d6/g6/Bg7); is to maneuver the King knight to c4, bishop to f4 and prepare e5.
============
Contributors : Larry Wolfley
Pablo Schmid (1700)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 c3
The Giuco Piano. An old and classical line. It prepares d4 but often leads to a gambit.
============
Contributors : Pablo Schmid
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 g6 Nc3
The most common move. The knight comes to his best square and prepares e4 pawn advance.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 58%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Pablo Schmid (1700)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6 c4
This move prepare the Maroczy Bind. Maybe the best way to play for White here.
============
Contributors : Pablo Schmid
David Grosdemange (1912)
e4 c5 Nf3 Nc6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 g6
this move enters the accelerated dragon variation .
black will put his king's bishop in fianchetto , and prepare d5 .
============
Contributors : David Grosdemange
Gino Figlio (2454)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6
The definition of the Najdorf from other Sicilians, a good move taking control of the b5 square, and preparing b5, this opening named after the Argentinian GM Miguel Najdorf who poularized the opening, but he did not create it as is often the case with so many modern openings. A6 is also designed to play e5 without white being able to reply with Bb5+
============
Contributors : Steven Hanly, Andrew Stephenson, Gino Figlio
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
e4 e5 Nf3 Nc6 Bc4 Bc5 d3
The Giuoco Pianissimo (Italian: "quietest game"). White aims for a slow buildup deferring d4 until it can be prepared. By avoiding an immediate confrontation in the center White prevents the early release of tension through exchanges and enters a positional maneuvering game.
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
d4 Nf6 c4 e6 Nc3 Bb4
The Nimzo-Indian Defence is a hypermodern opening, developed by Grandmaster Aaron Nimzowitsch who introduced it to master-level chess in the early 20th century. Unlike most Indian openings the Nimzo-Indian does not involve an immediate fianchetto, although Black often follows up with ...b6 and ...Bb7. By pinning White's knight Black prevents the threatened 4.e4 and seeks to inflict doubled pawns on White. White will attempt to create a pawn centre and develop his pieces to prepare for an assault on the Black position.
According to Chessbase, black chances are about 43%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
Thibault de Vassal (2407)
Nf3
The Réti Opening (also called the King's Knight Opening) is a chess opening characterized by the opening move 1.Nf3
It is named after Richard Réti, a Czechoslovakian chess player who used it to defeat the world champion José Raúl Capablanca in 1924.
According to ChessBase, out of the twenty possible opening moves, 1.Nf3 ranks third in popularity. It develops the knight to a good square and prepares for a quick castling. White maintains flexibility by not committing to a particular central pawn structure, while waiting to see what Black will do. The slight drawback to the move is that it blocks the f-pawn. This is not a problem if White does not intend to move it in the near future, but it rules out the possibility of playing systems with f3 and Nge2, which is a fairly popular setup against the King's Indian.
Usually 1.Nf3 will transpose into an opening with 1.d4, such as the King's Indian or the Queen's Gambit. If White follows up with an early c4 a transposition to the English Opening may be reached. Even the Sicilian Defense may be reached if the game opens 1.Nf3 c5 2.e4.
According to Chessbase, white chances are about 57%
============
Contributors : Thibault de Vassal
[Chess forum]
[Rating lists]
[Countries]
[Chess openings]
[Legal informations]
[Contact]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
[Social network] [Hot news] [Discussions] [Seo forums] [Meet people] [Directory]
Social network : create your photo albums, discuss with your friends...
Hot news & buzz : discover the latest news and buzz on the internet...
Discussions : questions and answers, forums on almost everything...
Seo forums : search engines optimisation forums, web directory...
Play the strongest international correspondence chess players !
|
Simal Moreira, Leonardo (BRA) [member # 10062] Correspondence chess : 2374 Ranked # 107 in the rating list. Rating history : 2326 2361 2358 2360 2374 2374 2374 This member has no profile in the social network. |
 | Correspondence chess World championship Play chess games Go (weiqi, baduk) Advanced chess Play big chess Chess trainer apk Rated tournaments Poker texas hold'em Fischer random chess |  |