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 Tanda Giovanni in the games.
Game_92116 Game_92115 Game_92114 Game_92113 Game_92108 Game_92103 Game_91583 Game_91582 Game_91579 Game_91576 Game_91572 Game_91567 Game_76268 Game_76267 Game_76266 Game_76265 Game_76264 Game_76258 Game_75785 Game_75783 Game_75781 Game_75778 Game_75774 Game_75769 Game_73128 Game_73127 Game_73126 Game_73125 Game_73124 Game_73123 Game_72852 Game_72851 Game_72850 Game_72849 Game_72848 Game_72842 Game_72658 Game_72657 Game_72656 Game_72652 Game_72648 Game_72643 Game_72523 Game_72522 Game_72521 Game_72520 Game_72519 Game_72513 Game_72289 Game_72288 Game_72287 Game_72286 Game_72281 Game_72276 Game_72048 Game_72047 Game_72046 Game_72045 Game_72044 Game_72043 Game_71574 Game_71572 Game_71570 Game_71567 Game_71563 Game_71558 Game_70260 Game_70259 Game_70258 Game_70257 Game_70252 Game_70247 Game_70176 Game_70175 Game_70174 Game_70173 Game_70168 Game_70163 Game_67267 Game_67266 Game_67264 Game_67261 Game_67257 Game_67252 Game_64466 Game_64465 Game_64463 Game_64460 Game_64456 Game_64451 Game_64118 Game_64117 Game_64116 Game_64115 Game_64114 Game_64108 Game_59859 Game_59858 Game_59857 Game_59856
There are at least 100 results for Tanda in the forum.
George Jempty (2025-12-04 13:20:38)
Too many groups for tourneys
The very highest groups take forever to fill up. I think the low bound for the higher groups, rapid or standard, should be 2300.
George Jempty (2025-11-08 12:11:03)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Hello Garvin Gray, there is a similar rule if you are within 50 points of the floor of the next higher group, and "the field has gotten to the last two entries", and you pay 10 e-points.
I think this policy helps fill up hard to fill groups, like standard-M. Nobody has joined the new/empty rating list for that group in the meantime.
On a personal note, my future rating just since the last update earlier this week, has even gone up over 20 points and now stands at 2199, AND I have a clearly winning position (+3.0 per SF 17) against a 2300.
IMO I am clearly worthy of standard-M, and am not making a mockery of anything.
Scott Ligon (2025-10-31 12:46:50)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
To make things just slightly interesting. There's no challenge at all in holding the draw with black while playing a standard opening. Modern engines make it trivially easy. But in the Budapest or the Albin Countergambit or Alekhine's Defense, I'm pretty sure black can still hold the draw, but you have to be careful.
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:15:16)
Next thematic tournament
Yeah probably too tame for correspondence, interestingly I do intend to play 4.f3 for the most part, but I came up with the 4.Bf4 idea when investgating the Leningrad variation. After 4.Bg5 c5 now 5.d5?! which had been the standard is considered sub-optimal by the engine which prefers 5.e3, and after 5...h6, I concluded that White didn't have to play 6.Bxf6 or 6.Bh4, which is when I started investigating 4.Bf4. I actually may start playing this in FIDE tournaments where I will probably be much lower rated, exactly to get into such a tame line
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2024-03-16 20:34:57)
message for Thibault regarding...
... the tournament that I withdrawed from.
Dear Thibault,
February 25. I sent you an email that I had accidentally enrolled in two standard class M tournaments, by clicking a second time before the next page loaded.
This night I saw some new games and assumed it was the new WCC cycle. But upon closer inspection, it was the second Class M tournament that I thought I had withrawn from.
Added to the imminent new WCC this will be a bit much. So is it still possible to fix this?
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-04 00:14:46)
GUI for Big Chess?
I have the same version. It shows "normal", yes, and i wrote "standard" because of some brain fart, probably.
Yeturu Aahlad (2023-06-03 21:23:49)
GUI for Big Chess?
Ilmars, which version of winboard are you using? In 4.8.0, "standard" is "normal". With that, I have reproduced your instructions - Thanks!
File->save game and save position are useful, but the saved files can't just be reopened with a double-click. The board size is not represented in the files. Repeating Ilmars' first step, then file->load game or load position works.
Ilmars Cirulis (2023-06-03 02:36:50)
GUI for Big Chess?
1) File... -> New Variant
here I choose "standard" and specify "Board size" 16 ranks and 16 files.
2) The FEN for Big Chess starting position is rnb1rbnqknbr1bnr/pppppppnnppppppp/7pp7/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/16/7PP7/PPPPPPPNNPPPPPPP/RNB1RBNQKNBR1BNR w - - 0 1 (if I haven't made any mistake) - copy it into clipboard
3) Edit -> Paste Position From Clipboard
(or Ctrl+Shift+V)
Thibault de Vassal (2023-03-31 22:52:44)
RUSSIA AND BELARUS NOT SUSPENDED?
Sorry if I quoted you wrongly... Could you specify?
Yes, first you were talking about wether FIDE and ICCF decisions were justified, but our discussion went on the global case:
you said (quote):
"If country A starts a war against country B, the relevant question is whether that war is justified or unjustified, whether it is a war of aggression or, instead, the attacker has the right to do so. "
"You argue that any context should be analysed in-depth, but you fail to hint at why Russia should be punished and the US should not."
So let's separate discussions: one is about FIDE/ICCF decisions, the other one is about war & its justifications.
About ICCF, I am not aware of a process to ban the russian team just after the invasion, I'm not sure what it means as well... does this mean that the russian team should have played under a neutral banner (that could be understandable), or does this mean that the whole team (every player) was banned?
I have no problem to talk about US war crimes in these countries... if you read my post again, there is a link to a page that deals with it.
I have no problem to talk about war crimes commited by Ukraine as well. There were war crimes for sure. There are proofs of that.
Questions remain: how many, for what aim... Everything will be analyzed.
My additional questions were not provocative, these are real questions to better understand your point of view. But I did not understand your answer (or you did not answer ?!)
Feel free to continue the discussion, you're welcome.
Patrycja Zerowska (2022-10-08 00:56:47)
Threefold repetition
Mr. Thbault de Vassal, you say that this case is treated the same way on most chess websites. This is not true. At the ICCF website, which is the standard for correspondence chess, the draw must be claimed (this in agreement with the Laws of Chess):
" ICCF:
9.2.1 The game is drawn, upon a correct claim by a player having the move, when the same position for at least the third time (not necessarily by a repetition of moves):
9.2.1.1 is about to appear, declares to the tournament director (or the server) the intention to make this move, or
9.2.1.2 has just appeared, and the player claiming the draw has the move.
At other websites, the rule is also correctly applied:
chess-mail.com
"8. To check the draw ( threefold repetition ; the fifty-move rule ) : Click on "Send and offer the draw". "
Gameknot:
"To declare the draw in a game due to the threefold repetition rule, please use "Declare draw" link located directly below the game board."
None of these sites violates the correct rule.
The FICGS way of handling this case involves several violations of the rules. First of all, the draw must be claimed. This rule exists for more than 100 years, and the advent of server chess hasn't changed it. Secondly, you require me to make a move, thereby taking back my claim and my intended move. Every beginner is told that it is forbidden to take back a move, a draw claim or a draw offer. Thirdly, you refuse to stop the clocks, allowing a player to lose on time by your inaction. This "inaction" constitutes interference in the course of the game by a third party, which is forbidden. Fourthly, your bot wants to automatically end the game when there is threefold repetition (or 50-move rule). Again this is forbidden by the rules! A bot can only act upon a claim, and never when there is no claim. With all these violations, we are no longer talking about chess, but about an undesirable chess variant.
It would be so easy to add a button under the chess board, where a player can make a draw claim. Why isn't this done?
You or your referee still hasn't taken action, and a whole week has passed since my claim.
I have always - since 1972 - played according to the rules and I refuse to violate the rules here and now. Therefore I won't make a move; it is forbidden.
Giacomo Rita (2022-04-04 00:22:26)
TITLE FEM
why, despite having two FEM standards, was I not awarded the title?
Vadrya Pokshtya (2022-02-17 08:52:23)
Grand Dice Chess
Hello,
I am the author and inventor of chess variants. My chess variants are published on chessvariants.com and some of them can be played on Game Courier.
I would like to present to you a variant of chess with dice that I invented relatively recently and which can already be played on two sites on the Internet.
Grand Dice Chess
The Rules
The game uses a 12x12 board.
Each player has:
4 Kings
24 Pawns
8 Knights
8 Bishops
8 Rooks
4 Queens
White and black occupy the 1st-6th and 7th-12th ranks, respectively, as shown in the diagram.
Unfortunately I can't post an image here, but you can always find it here:
https://granddicechess.blogspot.com/2022/01/grand-dice-chess.html
https://www.chess.com/blog/Pokshtya/grand-dice-chess-battle
https://www.chess.com/forum/view/chess-variants/grand-dice-chess
White starts the game first.
The game uses four dice.
Opponents make moves alternately, throwing 4 dice. The piece to move is determined by a die:
1 = pawn, 2 = knight, 3 = bishop, 4 = rook, 5 = queen and 6 = king.
The player makes four moves at the same time based on the indications of the dice and has the right to refuse (pass) any move that does not suit him, unless it is a pawn move. Unlike in regular dice chess it's allowable to pass moves. And this rule was already applied about a thousand years ago in old variant of Shatranj (Shatranj al-Mustatîla or Oblong Chess), the Arabic pre-decessor of modern chess. However it's not allowed to pass on pawn-moves, except when they are blocked.
Chess pieces move across the board as they do in ordinary chess - according to the standard rules of move and capture.
The only minor exception is for a pawn that is not allowed to move forward two squares from its starting position.
Upon reaching the last rank, the pawn can be promoted to any piece except the king and itself.
There is no castling, check and checkmate in the game.
The goal of the game is to capture four enemy kings.
The first test tournament was held on the site http://abstractgames.ru/index.php
The tournament is attended by 10 people and I received the most positive feedback from them.
The game has proven itself so well that regular tournaments have already been launched.
Yesterday the game was added to Dagaz server https://games.dtco.ru/map
And it's a great place to test the game in person, as registering on the site is very easy and doesn't require any personal information.
The game turned out to be extremely interesting and exciting, replete with puzzling combinations. Surprisingly, with this size of the board and the number of pieces, the average game lasts no more than 30 turns.
Thibault de Vassal (2021-06-30 01:11:05)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament
Hello Misha, your name has been removed (a few days ago already). My best wishes
Misha Allport (2021-06-27 18:47:48)
Withdrawal from Standard Tournament
I respectfully request withdrawal from the Standard Tournament -Class E- #000239 for personal reasons. Thank You, Allport, Misha
Garvin Gray (2021-06-13 11:22:28)
Wch 22 Stage 2 ended
Now that my ficgs cup group has finished, I feel I can reply without feeling like I am pushing my own barrow.
When I highlighting the issue of when there is a group of 5, I was not intending it to be related to either championship.
This is because, in my view, the issue is the same, regardless of whether the group of view occurs in the WCH, the ficgs cup or a general group game.
I am aware that some people probably have read my replies as being rather strong on this topic, and in some cases, unhelpful, but if you look at it from the viewpoint of having engaged in genuine dialogue, exchanged viewpoints, debated back and forth, and gone over many topics again and again and finally after all that time, have gotten in writing and published rules that changes will be made, and then as soon as the situations come up again, the old rules are enforced again and nothing changes, then it becomes quite a bit more understandable why a negative tone and suspicion is underlaid in the discussions.
And as for why not walk away?
Had I been told that the entire format for the FICGS cup was going to be disbanded, that groups of 5 were going to be used and only single round robin was going to be used and three or four stages were going to be used, then YES, I probably would not have entered, and I would have made my feelings known as to why I was not entering.
And, I would have been looking to not enter any further World Championships as well. I have a Round Robin group coming up, as well as a Stage 2. These I will complete and do my best to advance, but if the old rules are maintained, then I will not be entering any future cycles.
Daniel Parmet (2020-04-28 22:59:06)
The State of correspondence chess
I have played correspondence chess now for 13 years. During that time, I have played 983 correspondence games. These days I mostly play at ICCF and some of these issues may be ICCF specific... but since ICCF has no forum and I want to get a sense of the health of correspondence chess in general... I posit my thoughts here.
First of all, I think the number of correspondence players and the number of correspondence games are decreasing across the board on all correspondence websites due to the things I want to talk about.
Second, I primarily shifted my playing to ICCF years ago for two reasons: 1) The higher level of competition available; 2) The norms available. Although I was concerned with their fees which are usually minor but, in many cases, certain organizers do construct outlandish tournaments that you need to be wary of (looking at you Venezuela).
On the first point, I think ICCF is a little more open to high caliber players competing up until a point (they really try to prevent you from playing a 2450+ player until you are 2450+ yourself). And the rating protections get tougher and tougher the further you go but they make it easy to play 2300 players. While most websites outside of ICCF, usually have one annual Cup / WCH or Thematics, these other websites usually make it impossible to play anyone more than a few hundred points above you no matter your rating outside of these few events.
On the second point, I think ICCF norms are somewhat of an illusion. They’ve always been hard and much harder to achieve than OTB norms which received a watering down of requirements of decades ago. In fact, ICCF norms are so much harder than FIDE norms that one actually needs to achieve two norms to receive the prerequisite title in ICCF vs the standard three norms required by FIDE. In the US, for example, there are 116 ICCF Titled players in history (13 GMs, 25 SIM, 78 IMs) vs 828 FIDE Titled players in present (101 GMs 166 IM 561 FMs) [https://ratings.fide.com/topfed.phtml]. Now however, there is a proposal, for the ICCF GM Title only, proposed by Dennis Doren, ICCF Rules Commissioner who really does a lot for correspondence chess, and SIM Uwe Staroske, ICCF Qualifications and Ratings Commissioner, to remove the requirement to have to play GMs to get the GM Title [leaving IM and SIM untouched] [https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1280]. This proposal states, “A search of the ICCF data indicates that 21 players obtained at least 2 GM norms across 24 games but failed to get the GM title because of the requirement of "5 GM" opponents. (Only 5 of those players are currently active).” Leaving aside the fact that this proposal violates the very definition of the GM Title, one must beat the club in order to join it, the proposal further outlines the real problems without addressing them, “The GM Title has already become far harder to earn than it used to be, due to the rating suppression caused by the increase in draws.” Wow, let’s unpack that one line because it is a doozy!
Really, this one line, that is easily overlooked, is two huge problems that correspondence is facing: 1) death by one thousand draw paper cuts and 2) rating deflation. I will argue later that there is a third huge problem but let’s start with the ones acknowledged by ICCF itself. Every correspondence player knows the draw rate is going up. As engines and hardware get stronger, players are able to save positions that in the past would have been lost and we are finding ever easier ways to head straight towards 0.00 as Black. I would love to see a detailed analysis that describes how much harder it has become to win as Black against a decent correspondence player (let’s say someone 2300+). In the last five years, I have beaten three 2300+ players as Black without counting mouseslips (one in 2015, one in 2016 and one any day now in 2020) despite playing extremely aggressive openings like the KID (for the record that’s three Black wins out 103 Black draws or 2.91% Win rate). That may be part of the draw problem, but I have witnessed my own draw rate skyrocket 2014: 82.4% 2015: 86.7% 2016: 90.2% 2017: 90.6% 2018: 91% 2019 is still in progress. Often for these norms, you need to score +2, +3, +4 or +5 despite the fact that +1 usually wins the event… and with the draw rate North of 90% in a 12-13 game event that means you are likely to win 1 game on average… but in many events the entire cross table often sees one to three entire wins (look at a recently completed tournament here where I scored my first IM norm that required +0 and I scored +1). My win was one of five wins in the entire tournament 100/105 = 95.2% draw rate! [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=73482]. People love to tell me that’s fine because we are talking about such a weak event as Category 8 [2449 was the rating average]. Fine, I do not accept your argument but let’s look at the World Championship then shall we? Let’s look at the most recently concluded World Championship 30 which finished on 10/2/2019, Category 13 [2562 was the rating average]. This event was won by the new World Champion SIM Kochemasov, Andrey Leonidovich 2540 [https://www.iccf.com/event?id=66745]. Congrats to the new World Champion on his two wins! The event had 8 decisive games out 136 or a draw rate of 91.2% (not far off my own). But wait did I say SIM? I did. In fact, congratulations to the World Champion on scoring his final GM norm as well! This World Championship saw 5 SIMs compete in a field with 12 GMs. While 3 of the SIMs finished 1st 2nd and 3rd, only our new World Champion scored a GM norm. The problem is with all the draws that norms are not just becoming hard, but maintaining or increasing one’s rating is becoming hard. And one’s rating is how one receives any decent invites to have a chance at a norm in the first place.
The draws are a death by one thousand cuts as I recently played one of the ICCF’s proposal’s outlined “21 players that could have obtained a GM norm.” My rating is 2389 and his rating is 2504 (although SIM, he is recognized by all his peers as a GM caliber player). As Black, I obtained an easy draw without ever being in any trouble at all. The player had a rather angry initial discussion with me post mortem about how he felt it was wrong that a 2504 should have to play a player as weak as 2389 where the draw would kill his rating. He felt that his rating was being destroyed by these draws with weaker players and that ICCF should protect him from us. He felt I have it easier as a lower rated player because I can gain rating from these draws. Let’s look at his argument that one is causing the other and it is only happening to those 2500+. At the time that draw occurred, I gained exactly 1.17915 rating points from it (and he lost the same); however, this was the first draw in over 40 games in which I *gained* rating points (this statement is no longer true as a few higher rated players have since given me draws but at the time of the game’s conclusion this was the case). Yes, that’s right, ICCF already does such a good job of protecting higher rated players that it actively hands out advice to new players to be very particular about what invites and events they play because the draws could kill their initial rating. I too have experienced a net negative loss of rating points from draws and still seen my rating going up only due to the fact that wins are easier and ever so slightly more common to come by at my level. However, it means I am not exempt from the draw problem. It is patently false that this problem is limited to those 2500+ as in my last 43 draws, I lost rating in 42 of them and gained rating from 1 of them. Therefore, it appears draws are causing rating deflation and this is the real problem in both norms and correspondence in general. With the exception of matches, perhaps there is a way to have draws not count against one’s rating since there are so many of them? It kind of blends the Chess rating concept with that of Bridge where one cannot lose rating points once earned. What we can see is that the player’s argument that draws are causing rating deflation is probably true. One problem is at least partly causing the other one.
There is a third more devious problem worse than the two outlined above in my opinion. While rating deflation, draws, less players and norms are real issues… they are dwarfed by the change in behavior caused by these issues. I know it is a bit overdramatic to talk about such issues in a time of COVID, but there has been a great increase in the number of players playing Dead Man Defense (often shortened by correspondence players to DMD+ and DMD=). It is important to note that the death rate in COVID for those in the elderly category is markedly higher and the correspondence community in general is also markedly higher. I have heard estimates of the average age of correspondence player being 70-75 range though I haven’t seen any data. Back to DMD, what is DMD and why is it such awful behavior? The players are hoping you die before you win so they can claim either a win on time or if it goes to adjudication then at least claim a draw. The other hope is that you might mouse slip by being forced to play more moves which while that would never happen over the board does surprisingly account for a large portion of wins in ICCF correspondence high-level play. One of the main problems this issue causes is that if someone takes an early draw against a player who then goes on to die, the entire rest of the field gets a free half point and you are punished for playing your game quicker than your peers. Often, players over the board resign once mate is unstoppable or a simple endgame is reached in which the result is known to players of all levels. In correspondence, often even sooner than these players will resign or offer draws, knowing that perpetual check is unavoidable should we play another 10 moves past the piece sac against a bare king? How about when the engine reads +25 +30 or +40? So, for the most, correspondence players draw or resign much earlier than one might over the board due to engine and tablebase assistance. On that note, depending on the tournament, players can outright claim wins and draws either on the 6-piece tablebase (always allowed) or the sometimes allowed on an event by event basis the 7-piece tablebase. It is considered out right rude to make a player play all the way to the 6-piece tablebase to claim. I recently claimed one win in a six piece tablebase up an entire piece where my jolly opponent wanted to discuss the game in a post mortem (rarely done in correspondence in general anyways). I declined to even respond to him even though I was already having a very lively and fun post mortem with a Venezuelan on our extremely interesting draw. A worse example is the 92 move game I played with opposite colored bishops where I had two extra pawns. I offered a draw as white and the higher rated player to my lower rated opponent who declined it, forcing me to play to a 7-piece tablebase claim to end the game. This kind of behavior used to be quite rare. In the past, I would say it happened in 1 out of every 100 games… these days it seems to happen in every other game (1/2!). I have seven different opponents right now that are DMD+ against me where the engine reads +148 (or in some cases even sees mate! The 2504 player that complained about my rating earlier also complained someone was DMD+ him… I remarked that I have no less than 7 players DMD+ me and if they would resign? My rating would be about 2450 right which sort of eliminates his claim about our “giant” rating difference). The issue is that due to rating deflation these players need to artificially keep their rating high as long as they can because that’s how they will get their next invite. With the new terrible time control that is not yet Official (although there is a proposal to make it Official: https://www.iccf.com/Proposal.aspx?id=1282), players only need to make a move once every 50 days to pointlessly extend the game. I have a DMD= draw currently going on 16 months now where the player is just moving Kg1 Kf1 Kg1 every 50 days. This time control exasperates the DMD problem. When I contacted ICCF Officials to point out the severity of this problem, I was told that I should report it to the TD on a case by case basis only if it is DMD+ as they will not look at DMD= at all. However, it is usually the TDs that are the biggest offenders (6 of the 7 players described above were TDs). In fact, it is usually the same general casts of characters which allows for an easy black list to be created that bars these players from play until they can fix their atrocious behavior. This behavior needs to be punished. These players need to be reprimanded. In the end, lack of norms, rating deflation and the draw death will not make me quit correspondence chess. It is DMD+/DMD= that will make me quit. This experience is my personal experience with high level correspondence over thirteen years and I would love to hear from other correspondence players concerning these problems.
Peter W. Anderson (2018-05-15 11:29:42)
Leela Chess Zero
Hello everyone :)
I guess most people here will be aware of the Leela Chess Zero project.
I was interested in whether anyone here is already using Leela? I have run a few of my old FICGS games through it quickly and it gives very different evaluations to the standard engines in some positions - I am not sure if they are better or worse at a quick glance but they are different!
For those who aren't familiar with Leela it is an attempt to recreate something like Alpha Chess Zero for the PC. It is not yet as strong as Stockfish etc but is as strong as most grandmasters and some weaker engines and is gradually increasing in strength as it is trained. It comes in two versions: one to run on the CPU and one to run on a graphics card. A high end graphics card gives the best results, but it runs OK on CPUs.
Leela is nowhere near as tactically strong as the best engines (whether it ever will be on "normal" hardware is an open question). However, to my eyes, it generally exhibits pretty good positional judgement, and so I am figuring it could provide a useful alternative view for correspondence games.
You can contribute to this really interesting project by helping to train it by donating computer time. Helping with the training is pretty straightforward. A guide of how to help is at
https://github.com/glinscott/leela-chess/wiki/Getting-Started
A forum and progress chart is at
http://lczero.org/
I found getting it to run under GUI's as an analysis tool a little more fiddly as it not yet fully UCI compliant. However, I have got it to run OK under Chessbase, Shredder, and Arena OK for analysis. For running matches Arena or something like Cutechess may be best.
I would interested to know your thoughts on this.
Ilmars Cirulis (2018-03-15 17:53:50)
A few questions to Nelson Bernal Varela
Offtopic question about poker (on FICGS):
Is it possible to make some faster time control, for example, +1 day after completed hand instead of single move?
Like in chess - Standard and Rapid.
Garvin Gray (2018-02-26 02:50:10)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?
ICCF is the FIDE way. As all events are round robin, each player is told the score they need to achieve to get a Norm before the event begins.
Almost any item can be easily understandable if kept simple, but does this mean it is the best system if it does not produce the most accurate results for player performances?
For Comparison with ICCF: Here you have the point total for all players to get a norm in norm tournaments.
At ICCF: In the Points table, they have columns which show what score each player needs to reach to get that particular norm.
So that information is included in the cross table.
Thibault de Vassal (2018-02-25 22:44:25)
Norm qualification criteria, incorrect?
Hi Garvin! FIDE ? I'm not really surprised... As for ICCF, I don't know much the way it calculates norms but FICGS algorithm looks like the way IECG did it. Anyway I understand your point and that makes sense, of course. I guess that this rule was designed to be not too complex to display and understandable as well. I'm not sure yet about what to conclude on this, but anyway that's true, there is something to dig.
Garvin Gray (2018-01-22 01:08:34)
Conditional chess moves (again)
The rules of the site already permit players to claim 6 man tablebase positions, when they appear on the board, as either a win or draw, even if the position is above 50 moves.
That rule is standard across all webserver sites.
Also, even though a position might say mate in 75 and the claim is granted, this does not mean it is outside of the 50 move rule as there maybe a capture or pawn move between the initial position and mate.
Garvin Gray (2018-01-22 01:06:01)
Chess engines in no engines tournaments
The penalties have to be similar to players who are caught using engines at otb tournaments.
Loss of all games in the tournament ie they are kicked out of the tournament and then further sanctions are applied.
But working out how the person used engine assistance is the key question?
Most would say, oh the player choose the top or second ranked engine move almost all of the time. But most decent players would do that anyways.
So that is not a good enough standard. And so that then needs a new test.
It is personally one of the reasons why I did not speak in favour of the event.
Ilmars Cirulis (2017-11-20 17:48:28)
7 pieces tablebases
I messed up the grammar, but it should be understandable with some effort.
Garvin Gray (2017-09-24 15:45:27)
WCh and other ramblings
I think it will be a case of Eros will keep defending the title until he is defeated.
This is not an uncommon situation in a lot of sports where a champion has a long unbeaten streak. Whilst they have some desire to move on to other things, voluntarily ending a many year streak by non participation can feel like all those years wasted.
Therefore, quite often what happens is that the next champion either supersedes the reigning champion because the new champion because they advanced the playing standard, or because the current champion rested on their laurels whilst the competition advanced.
Sergey Zemlyanov (2017-07-03 22:02:59)
My new match with GM Eros Riccio
Hi all! I just transfer 100 euros to the site in hope to play with GM Eros Riccio in Standart Tournament with 100 e-points as entry fee. I know him as one of the strongest corrchess players of the world, but I'll try to survive in two games. And I'm not going to purposely shut out the game.
Garvin Gray (2016-11-30 08:33:54)
Future penalties for games lost on time
Herbert Kruse- Policies and procedures can be changed at any point in time as situations change, or as events occur.
Where in my post did I say that I was changing the rules after the beginning the game. In fact, I think you would find that the game had ended. That was the point.
The rule I was bringing up is what to do in the future for players who lose games on time. ICCF is generally seen as the standard practice for most rules and procedures, and their policies on this matter is very clear.
So if their policy was to be adopted here, it would start from (insert date), which would hopefully be January 1st 2017.
George Jempty (2016-09-02 10:21:48)
Player of the Year
I've been thinking it would be interesting to have nominations for a "Player of the Year" that FICGS members could then vote on. Qualifications could be listed in a manner similar to the following:
1) 15 wins, 13 draws and 0 losses since Oct 2015
2) Rating increase of nearly 250 points (1904-2152) during same time period
3) As 1904 player finished tied for second with score of 4/6 in tournament where average rating was 2041
4) Won a standard B tournament with score of 5.5/6 and a performance rating of 2332
5) Guaranteed tie for first place in a standard A tournament (currently tied for first and is playing in the one remaining game in the tourney against someone one point behind)
6) Currently leading stage 1 group of 2016 World Championship with score of 5/5
7) Finished tied for first in Rapid M tournament for which it was necessary to buy a ticket because TER of 2077 being below normal minimum of 2100
Yes I'm bragging on myself more than a little bit, but still I think that the listed qualifications are pretty objective
Garvin Gray (2016-03-10 00:56:17)
Chess960
And that they are not divided by rating, standard and rapid time controls etc is also an issue.
With chess960, all the top chess engines can be used.
Garvin Gray (2016-01-19 02:55:13)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
As long as the group sizes are large ie 9 or more players, then I do not think it is a great concern if some of the groups have even numbers.
As we experience in any of the groups, be it world champs, standard games, rapids etc, there is always someone who does not play, so even if every group was 8 groups of 9 players, one group would become distorted and would really be an 8 player group with the inevitable consequence of some players receiving 4W/3B and others 3W/4B.
If the group size is large, 10 to 11 players per group, then the difference between 5W/4B and 4W/5B is not that great, compared to a group of 6 players, where the split is 3W/2B.
With large group sizes in the first stage, this could mean only a few groups (say six groups of 11 or so players), then the second stage could be held as a double round robin which solves all the problems.
This rule is already included in the current FICGS World champs for when groups are six players or less, but is rarely used.
Dann Corbit (2016-01-07 22:20:18)
Thematic tournaments?
May as well advance one full move to get variety. Everyone will respond:
3. .. Nf6
followed by:
4. Bb2
That is quite an interesting opening and much more rarely played than the standard
1. b4 e5 Bb2 Bxb4 Bxe5 Nf6 e3 d5
Garvin Gray (2015-10-17 14:19:12)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
This is different to my Ficgs world cup proposal, which had clear goals in mind.
In my opinion, this just seems like one big round robin and once the games start, it will be rather difficult to feel like the games are anything special, unless the field is red hot.
And a big fat no to the standard time control. Lengthen the rapid type time control if you wish, but do not use the standard type time control.
30 days plus 3 days per move should be satisfactory.
Thibault de Vassal (2015-10-16 01:12:10)
FICGS chess cup : proposal
Hi all,
The recent discussions on FICGS chess wch tie break rules just gave me an idea...
Obviously, there are no satisfying solution (for everyone I mean) for a change in the wch rules. In my opinion, wch rules are great already, even if there are too many draws in matches.
The idea of a cup tournament is here for years but I didn't see any way to include it, in a several rounds version at least, in our calendar because of the wch cycle, the slowly decreasing number of active players, and so on...
But what do you think about this cup format:
An enormous round robin tournament with the 33 (1 player for each piece on the board, it's a symbol but the number is to be discussed) highest rated players who entered the waiting list. It is 32 games per player for 1 round only, duration of games could be the standard one (because there is one round only), longer but maybe fits more the number of games and additional games in other tournaments.
Looks like a great challenge and a real alternative, with very few risks of draw odds, cheating or whatever... It may be the biggest correspondence chess round robin tournament on the internet.
Any opinion? Would you play such tournament?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-31 13:23:45)
Standard time control abusers
We had so many discussions here about the rules that concluded that no decision should be made involving any human feeling on a chess server... I remember ICCF/IECG tournament director(s) going this way as well and that's the way time/DMD rules were thought and written.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:53:40)
Ficgs is a money trap * BEWARE *
From what I have read here from your response Thibault- I see no grounds AT ALL to not pay the prize.
The rating rule is there for the best interest of the site, because ratings are meant to be the way we all judge what standard of play we are and what divisions we can enter.
So comparing a rating argument with this argument is drawing a rather long bow indeed.
Just like the rating rule, why a player should get a money prize by winning games without fighting?
Already answered about ratings. About winning games without fighting (or playing), Nick entered under the conditions believing the match would take place.
If he entered the match believing it to not take place and David did play, then Nick has taken a risk that has backfired.
The point is that it is not Nick's fault the match did not take place. From my reading of the rules, there is nothing clear that says you can not pay out the prize.
Remember, you are making an absolute ruling here that applies FOREVER. This means that in effect you have taken 100 epoints at least out of Nick's account, his original stake, for just entering a match.
I would ask as site admin. Why would ANY player on this site want to support paid matches after this event and circumstances?
When the site admin can in effect, I was not happy with your match conditions that it was played under, I don't really have anything to point towards, but I did keep your cash anyways.
I for one will not be supporting any matches or tournaments from now on whilst this practice remains in place. I do not want to enter a match, have it not take place and then the site admin say, tough luck, not your fault the match did not take place, but I am keeping your cash.
The more I look at this and type, I am finding it hard to not say that Nick Burrows has been robbed of his cash. These events are real.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:37:06)
Standard time control abusers
As for the idea of the rapid time control- I love the rapid time control, it is just that for my rating, and those around my rating range, very few tournaments start at all.
So to get our fix, we have to look to the standard time control events, and then we run into these issues.
I maintain that you stopped the trail of closing the standard time control divisions wayyyy too early.
Nothing at the top is really starting at this point in time, even though players on this site are active, or trying to be.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-31 10:34:50)
Standard time control abusers
Players are ok with the time control, that is not in dispute, it is this behaviour and behaviours like it.
Any arbiter feels that actions during a game are against the general spirit of the game and bring the game of chess in disrepute, they can always use the fide laws of chess PREFACE:
PREFACE
The Laws of Chess cannot cover all possible situations that may arise during a game, nor can they regulate all administrative questions. Where cases are not precisely regulated by an Article of the Laws, it should be possible to reach a correct decision by studying analogous situations which are regulated in the Laws. The Laws assume that arbiters have the necessary competence, sound judgement and absolute objectivity. Too detailed a rule might deprive the arbiter of his freedom of judgement and thus prevent him from finding a solution to a problem dictated by fairness, logic and special factors. FIDE appeals to all chess players and federations to accept this view.
A necessary condition for a game to be rated by FIDE is that it shall be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
It is recommended that competitive games not rated by FIDE be played according to the FIDE Laws of Chess.
Member federations may ask FIDE to give a ruling on matters relating to the Laws of Chess.
And:
Article 11: The conduct of the players
11.1 The players shall take no action that will bring the game of chess into disrepute.
Whilst this is rather broad and rather vague, surely DMD type actions fall under this heading.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-08-30 23:00:22)
Standard time control abusers
Definitely I'm in trouble with this problem. I still don't get why rapid tournaments (and a bit of patience... e.g. the case described by David) should not be a solution enough when many other players are ok with this standard time control, including DMD in the limit of the rules. Once more, there is no known way to avoid a Dead Man Defence that will always find a way to get around the rules, so...
Alexis Alban (2014-08-30 17:18:41)
Standard time control abusers
I understand it now, thanks.
Garvin Gray (2014-08-28 12:50:46)
Standard time control abusers
Alexis Alban: I dont you have read the whole thread and the comments from other posters who have talked about the habits of other players.
There is even a term for this behaviour. It is called DMD- dead mans defense.
And it is described very well.
They sit on their games for 35 days, make no moves, then suddenly are able to make 9 moves in 5 days, then make no more moves for 35 days and then make another 9 moves in 35 days and then it is rinse and repeat, time control and time control.
Meanwhile this is being done in positions where they are in dead lost positions ie mate in 30. They idea is solely to just piss off their opponents, nothing more.
So please do not just try and make this about one player. Standard time control abusers are a cancer on this and other corro chess sites and they should be gotten rid of as fast as possible.
They spread misery and suffering everywhere they go and the only person that really suffers is the opponent, who has to wait and wait for the games to finish, whilst the site admin sits back, does nothing and is just as guilty and the person doing the action.
At the end of the day, the person in charge who sits back and does nothing when they know of poor conduct under their watch is taking place is just as guilty, if not more so, than the original offender. This is because they create the culture that says it is permissable and says to everyone else that this behaviour is tolerated and the site is not to be taken seriously.
Alexis Alban (2014-08-27 14:49:01)
Standard time control abusers
I don't think that's the problem Don. For example the player Garvin is talking about only has 9 running games. However his profile says that he's doctor, so perhaps life responsibilities is causing his slow play rate.
I have well over 20 games running on this server and 5 on ICCF, and I feel like I can easily handle 20 more. There are times when I'm sitting there just waiting for my turn. I am however not a doctor, although I do work 40 hours a week.
Don Groves (2014-08-27 13:18:01)
Standard time control abusers
This is true, Timofey. Thibault has no control over how many games are played on other servers, but he can control how many can be played on this server by known slow players. Reducing those games on this server may not eliminate the problem but it clearly could help.
Timofey Denisov (2014-08-15 11:17:28)
Standard time control abusers
Don Groves,
if reduce max number of games simultaneously played, ppl can start more games in OTHER advanced chess servers (LSS, ICCF, bestlogic.ru), or creating some clones (2nd, 3rd accounts).
And max games of play depends of player's hardware and free time on day :)
Don Groves (2014-08-15 01:54:11)
Standard time control abusers
My position has not changed: the main reason for slow play is players who have too many games in progress for the amount of time they can devote to chess. The current level of allowable games is far too high, in my opinion. No one should be allowed to enroll in another tournament if they still have several uncompleted tournaments going on! How many is "several" needs to be decided, but 50, or whatever the limit now is, is way too many!
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 13:20:16)
Standard time control abusers
okidoki ...
Reasons for ban can be fuzzy i do agree, and i think not in a ''fair play spirit''.
I should have spoken about withdrawal or something else ... whatever i am intersting in playing chess and i always intend to play my Pech's game normally.
It can even be fun to play like that : the challenge is to win by time !!! :-)
In fact i wanted to pointed out that there is maybe different ways than changing rules to avoid time abusers. It's been a long time that i did not seriously play chess, and i am not an expert in cc ... but i am thinking that the actual time rules (combined to the moves interface) are simply really good ...
As a server manager you can find out material evidence of time abusing ( even if it is not as simple as i say ) and a cheater will always find a way to cheat on new rules.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-04-23 12:27:04)
Standard time control abusers
There have been many discussions here that concluded that human factor (particularly decisions by me) should be reduced to minimum... David, I'm perfectly aware of this case, this is a permanent test for FICGS rules. But reasons for a ban here would be kind of fuzzy and I think we must avoid that.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-23 09:37:40)
Standard time control abusers
I'm not defending the 29 day delay yet the move every two days isn't abnormal for cc chess. M.S.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 09:34:42)
Standard time control abusers
Just to precise my point :
- Evoluting rules is a good thing and the fact in implies evoluting cheats is also a good thing ( :-) )
- Allowing one day vacation should be authorized vhen too many moves to play
--> If there is a proof (IP connection or date when vacation are taken in my ''6 players case'') we must consider that we are not in a possible case of correspondance chess.
I am sure it does not happen that often.
David Fierry Fraillon (2014-04-23 09:09:36)
Standard time control abusers
Hi all,
I am suffering a player abusing of time control ... he has waiting for 29 days for playing one move and then alternating one move / one day of vacation.
I read all comments on this post and i do agree with both of you (Garvin and Thibault) on main points.
Basically thibault you're wright but maybe you will reconsider your position by looking at it with new eyes :
- In the current WCH at least 6 players are using this ''technic'' : the Pech family (Stepan, Matej, Jaroslav and Jarsolav senior), Pechova and Mach
- They all coming from Czech Republic
So what i think : it is only one player (and i am sure you can check that with IP connection). That player is not interrested in winning elo and is stupid by using the same country.
It is not a person interested by chess it is only someone who want bad on FICGS : and that the point you can use for banning him.
Obviously, I am not sure of what i wrote and in theory i do not agree with writing names of the guilty ... but in that case i think you should consider that guy like a hacker and not like a chess player using a stupid technic for winning elo.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-04-23 00:19:10)
Standard time control abusers
A problem with starting with only 10 days is players who may start a new tournament late.
Garvin, I must say I sometimes play this way myself when I have few time during a few weeks... I play easiest moves while delaying hard ones, then I concentrate on these difficult games during a short period and play several moves... Everyone may have his reasons.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-21 18:47:59)
Standard time control abusers
p.s. - not everyone uses an engine, some of us still do chess the old fashioned way rather than seeking a quick Rybka/Fritz/Houdini or whatever fix, and doing things the old fashioned way sometimes might need a few days ;-)
Michael Sayers (2014-04-21 18:45:39)
Standard time control abusers
Hi Timofey,
These are just ideas off the top of my head. I don't know what a solution would be to the issues mentioned in the thread. FYI, I don't work for ficgs and am just a fellow member commenting on things :)
Real cc needs three days per move + no big delays except in rare instances (and maybe a courteous message would help, such as "I hope you don't mind but I need a few more days here to figure out what to do", et c.). Courtsey and sincere communication make a lot of things much smoother!
All The Best,
Michael
Timofey Denisov (2014-04-21 18:36:30)
Standard time control abusers
Michael Sayers, if you can play so fast every move, I can't play so fast. So if will be only these time controls, I will leave from this server. I want play in correspondence chess, not blitz chess.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-21 09:41:12)
Standard time control abusers
Hi Garvin,
Then maybe the solution is reduced maximum time on the clock? "Rapid" could be 10 days +1 day per move, 10 days maximum time available, or there could be no set maximum time, e.g. "rapid" requires a move in 24 hours or forfeit, "standard" requires a move in 72 hours or forfeit. What will happen though is a replacement of some players who always take the maximum time available and those few persons inducing most of the annoyance here (Pareto's principle) - this will be replaced with some players doing a tremendous amount of forfeits.
I'm not sure which is preferred (I don't know which I would prefer to encounter!).
M.
Garvin Gray (2014-04-21 04:18:03)
Standard time control abusers
Hello Michael,
Players starting games 'late' is not unusual. I think we have all done it through a combination of factors.
The issue that has been discussed here does not seem to be something that you are even close to doing, which is in the standard time control, wait until your clock gets down to 5 days, then make 10 moves to make the time control, then wait another 35 days and then make another 10 moves and keep repeating this behaviour.
Michael Sayers (2014-04-19 20:40:44)
Standard time control abusers
I want to offer a general apology to my opponents here re. my late start in deployment of moves by maybe 20 days in some games. Since then, I have moved promptly (within the day) of each move received.
This isn't the only venue where I play chess and I was a bit overwhelmed. Then I decided I had an obligation toward my fellow players to follow through reliably with the games.
As to players taking the maximum possible number of days to complete a game, in any system there are unreliable persons, abusers, et c., and when the rules become so numerous and strict as to prevent this then there is no remedy when a decent person needs a little flexibility - intense discomfort caused by some is replaced by slight and persistent discomfort for everybody, and probably no one wants that scenario.
Michael S.
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-16 11:41:12)
Standard time control abusers
1) not working. Because vacation days just skipping in count, so clock will gain double speed in 21th day (if player took 1-day vacation).
2) Yes... maybe do more? Maybe decline 50-move rule on 6- or even 7- pieces in "normal chess"? (because exist tablebases for these endgames, and players just do moves from database), and next is do adjudgement in 6- pieces positions? Result can be gained from chessok.com, for sample. Or if 7-pieces position you can gain result from latest version Aquarium (licensed, pirated copy can't access to tablebases).
Garvin Gray (2014-03-16 08:39:10)
Standard time control abusers
So what prevents a player doing these two measures to get around the rule:
1) Putting themselves on one day vacation as allowed on here.
2) Making one move after 19 days, and then sitting on the position again till day 35.
Game would just advance one move.
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-15 18:15:43)
Standard time control abusers
If player not make move after 20 days (vacation days not counting in these 20), then his clock will run 2x times faster until he will make move. After he make move, clock will work as usual.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-15 15:50:41)
Standard time control abusers
I saw that rule when looking through the iccf rules, but did not really understood how it worked, either in theory, or in practice.
Care to explain?
Joerg Moormann (2014-03-14 23:19:51)
Standard time control abusers
Why not the ICCF rule, that days >20 count double?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-12 13:44:36)
Standard time control abusers
Even a 10 days limit per move would not solve the DMD problem... And we had debates on the number of tournaments each player can enter, such a (big) change would not satisfy everyone (for the least, I think).
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-11 03:42:43)
Standard time control abusers
Finalgen is http://mtu-media.com/finalgen/home_ing.php
Timofey Denisov (2014-03-11 03:41:27)
Standard time control abusers
Don Groves, I have reason: "Finalgening" endgames, for sample. It takes very much time :( And this process makes engine very slow, so if I finalgening endgame in one game, I not make moves in all games...
Don Groves (2014-03-09 22:31:46)
Standard time control abusers
Perhaps the best solution is to require every player to make at least one move in every game during a 10 day period. Unless on vacation, I cannot imagine a serious player could not do this. When I play, I never wait longer than about 3 days in any game.
Don Groves (2014-03-09 22:26:32)
Standard time control abusers
I have long ago stated my opinion that, if a player cannot make one move per week (or maybe 10 days) in each game they are playing, then that person is playing too many games. I have come up against the same problems Garvin is talking about many times and invariably players who do this are playing 30 or more games at the same time. My solution is to restrict the number of tournaments a player can enter. No player can enter a new tournament if he/she has more than two tournaments already running.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-05 00:23:43)
Standard time control abusers
Garvin, about that particular game you can use the rules to shorten it... the game will not last more than 30 days in this case (see 11.5).
On the ways people use their time, every player has his own reasons and I don't think he should have to say or justify it to see if it suits any "code of conduct". There must be rules and nothing more.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-04 01:15:06)
Standard time control abusers
FWIW, seems like at least one person thinks I 'got my way'. This is incorrect, I did not 'get my way'.
I wanted Thibault to take action against standard time control abusers, which he has not done.
Btw, in one of my games I am now on move 70 and have mate 13 and I think my opponent is going to make another move and then try and sit on the position for another 35 days.
Will Thibault step in then?
The closing of the three standard class divisions was a response to this issue and the fact that they have not started for a long time and that something needed to be done.
It is only after a decision had been made one way or another that some comments have started to come. I gave, some days, between replies, for others to comment, so others had an opportunity to cast their opinion, disagree, give alternative opinion and also to add new rules if they wish.
Then as nothing was happening with the discussions and my opponents were continuing with their actions, the need become more pressing. I have never said for a second that there is anything wrong at all with a person who moves at a rate of one move every five days.
It is with players who are so arrogant they believe it is their right to waste their opponents lives when they clearly can play at a faster rate. If they can not move at a faster rate, how come they can make 9 moves in 3 days, then not move for 35 days?
A person who is legitimately time poor will make one move every few days to make the time control.
Jing Huang (2014-03-04 00:14:15)
Standard time control abusers
I agree with this - "I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case."
I also like the cup idea :)
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 23:41:34)
Standard time control abusers
At least you join Garvin on the WCH groups point (and consequently the Cup idea)...
Anyway, as there are very few new strong chess players yet, this is a quite good time to try this change. Let's see in a few weeks/months if it has first effects.
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2014-03-03 18:14:56)
Standard time control abusers
Why do you think that a serious player would join FICGS if he cannot play serious correspondence games here? He hasn't done it during the last two years, so he will not do it after this restriction of tournament structure.
IMO time control 30/+1 is only suitable for correspondence cafe chess games. It's enough time for poker games, maybe even go games, but chess? That's enough in no case, if you have to work or want to play on others sides too.
I don't play normal chess on this side because the class tournaments are not attractive enough. At least I should climb the next class level if I win a tournament. With this ELO-driven classification that is not the case. And in the WCH there is not enough time to play a serious game. Furthermore, I don't like the preferential treatment (own groups) for the "better" players. I think that many players feel the same way.
By the way I think it's terrible that chess players are condemned here because they spent their time (or vacation) as they need it. According to the rules that is their right.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-03 11:14:15)
Standard time control abusers
Not "any" player though, Heinz-Georg :) You know like me that Garvin has some experience and knowledge on all these topics and I respect it, even if I disagree with him sometimes or often.
In this case, I estimated that either I had to prove some things, or something good could comes out (if I'm wrong). We all know that we miss new players for about 2 years, so it sounds important to do something that can be seen even if the real game is behind the server itself...
Heinz-Georg Lehnhoff (2014-03-03 01:40:14)
Standard time control abusers
I can't believe that one player has success with his permanent and aggressive posts. What a terrible development of the server. So I can no longer recommend this website as a chess server.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-02 23:20:58)
Standard time control abusers
Chesshere is a very different system indeed. There is a server for any taste, I guess...
Garvin, if there was only you, George & I responding, then you'd be probably 2 to choose to close these waiting lists so I'd do it. But if you think I've installed a terror-like system here, then this is not an option anymore...
Ok, I think this decision is quite terrible but let's do this. Class SM, class M & class A are now closed.
Rapid SM 12 is now empty, rapid M 71 has one player & rapid A 158 has three, let's wait and see how it evolves during a few weeks/months.
Josef Riha (2014-03-02 10:21:48)
Standard time control abusers
As I said earlier in this thread, look at chesshere.com. There are no tournament classes here.
You have three possibilities to play a game in CC:
1.) Start your own game and decide the time control and elo-range of your opponent or enter a game at the game list.
2.) If you are a teammember the teamcaptain assigns an opponent to you.
3.) You can apply a Championship with different elo-classes.
In all cases the time control range is mostly between 3 or 7 days. No extra days are added after a move.
If an opponent ran out of time you can remain your opponent to do a move or finish the game immediately. After each game your elopoints are updated and you can see your success (or failure).
Garvin Gray (2014-03-02 04:03:47)
Standard time control abusers
I see the idea of a vote as ridiculous and a waste of time. What it could lead to is people voting to keep the class A, M and SM tournaments open because they do not want to deprive the opportunity of someone to play in them, but the status quo remains that no one is joining them.
And what happens if you only get a couple of responses, which is exactly what could happen because of general site apathy?
If you want knowledge of how people feel about these matters, but do not want to publicly speak about the matter because they are afraid to offend the site administrator because they are afraid.
I have given you the absolute 'rounds of the kitchen' repeatedly and often on this issue and have not let up over a number of weeks.
It is natural on the internet that when someone is pushing that hard against the efforts of a volunteer site admin that there will be blowback and the 'pusher (me)' will cop criticism in return.
So far there has been little to none. In fact some of the regulars have been stating that there is an issue as well.
Instead of calling for votes that could just leave all of us in the same ridiculous situation, take the feedback I have provided, and also the inactivity of the groups as the votes that really count ie the marketplace has decided that they do not want those groups, and close the class SM, class M and class A groups immediately.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-03-01 23:51:05)
Standard time control abusers
Here is a proposal... I'll post a new topic asking who is favourable to close the class A, class M & class SM tournaments, promoting regularly this new topic in the chat bar.
Then let's wait 7 days exactly. If there are more players wanting to close (temporarily, at least) these waiting lists, then it will be done.
Does it sound acceptable to you?
Garvin Gray (2014-03-01 03:30:21)
Standard time control abusers
You do have a simple solution, btw. Get rid of the standard time control events and just concentrate from now on with rapid time control.
At least events will get started.
Garvin Gray (2014-03-01 03:29:31)
Standard time control abusers
And once again your response is to sit on your hands and do nothing. That is your clear response all the time to this major issue.
You ask for solutions, some of us attempt to offer solutions, you reject them. You ask for other sites rules, we offer them, you reject them saying they won't work. It is clear that you have no intention of doing anything about this and that you really believe that allowing my life to be wasted is acceptable, well I don't and I am sure the others who are trapped in this same situation do not.
I really do not understand how you can think it is acceptable to allow your members to have their lives wasted by players who are clearly just acting out of spite?
Your actions are really against the best interests of this site. I know as the site administrator that is a big call, but I really do feel it is the right call to make.
When you side with the abusers and not the victims, that is what happens.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-28 23:58:27)
Standard time control abusers
We also have here a rule for clearly lost positions but in all cases this is subjective, we should compare many judged positions. As for the Server rule, it is just similar to the 60 days move rule... Finally what ICCF TDs can do if a player makes one move every 25 days in a not "clearly lost" position until approching the time limit? Changing rules will not change anything IMO, there is no way to prevent someone to turn around clear rules to last a game.
Garvin Gray (2014-02-28 17:15:22)
Standard time control abusers
ICCF code of conduct 2: Extremely slow play in a clearly lost position is not proper behaviour in CC play, and is subject to a warning from the TD, and will result in disciplinary action if it continuous or is repeated in other games
Playing Rules- Server
3) Failure to Reply- a. The ICCF Webserver system will automatically generate an Email reminder when a player has not
made a move for 14 days and another, after 28 generated after 35 days of silence by a player.
b. When a player is sent a final reminder after 35 days of response time, he/she must either move or report to the Tournament Director and to his/her opponent, the intention to continue the game, within 5 days of that
reminder. If a player does not move or otherwise report his/her intention to continue, during the 40 days of response
time for the same move, the game may be scored as lost by the Tournament Director.
My own words- The number of days set above are based on 10 moves in 50 days, so for our site we would use a much shorter time period.
I can not answer what happens in practice on iccf as I do not play there.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-28 16:36:56)
Standard time control abusers
This statistic/percentage will increase with time, most probably (quite logical)... It is probably quite the same at ICCF.
Wch is always a problem with standard tournaments, that's one reason why I was not favourable (so far) to add another cycle (cup). But I think there will be more players registering soon, things are evolving in the right way with Google.
Peter W. Anderson (2014-02-28 08:36:07)
Standard time control abusers
True!
There are advantages to how the FICGS world champs are organised, but one disadvantage is that you can end up playing lots of Wch games and not really have time for normal tournaments.
George Clement (2014-02-27 20:11:20)
Standard time control abusers
Doesn't help if you want to play in a rated tournament!
Peter W. Anderson (2014-02-27 16:00:46)
Standard time control abusers
But I guess that will change a lot on March 1st when next WCh cycle starts.
George Clement (2014-02-26 18:22:36)
Standard time control abusers
Of the top 25 active users on this site only 7 have active games running!
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-26 15:19:34)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
Just a matter of taste... As for me, I really enjoy it. Rapid tournaments are probably a good compromise, no need to make standard tournaments look like it too much.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-26 15:17:40)
Standard time control abusers
Garvin, please tell me what do other sites like ICCF or any other in such cases?
Garvin Gray (2014-02-25 11:36:55)
Standard time control abusers
Broniek is now down to seven days in my game against him and has 9 moves to make. I have no doubt that he will make the time control, then will sit on the game for another 35 days.
Thanks Thibault for wasting my life like this.
You have a choice, you can either be on the side of the abusers or the victims. It is clear which side you are choosing. At the clear cost of the site.
I know why most people are not commenting and this because they are scared to offend you, even though they hate behaviour like this. Instead they just do not participate in the events.
I have noticed that no one is promoting ficgs anymore. Perhaps it is because the members have grown tired of seeing a site admin allowing members to act in manners like this and not being held to account for it.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-15 23:44:49)
Standard time control abusers
Garvin, I know why Mariusz can play this way in general (like a few other ones) and this 'may have' nothing to do with any kind of abuse. Anyway this game seems really close to finish and everyone has the right to play games until the end. One could have chosen rules that say "every game with Rybka +/-5.0 is won" or even more complex rules involving evaluation and clocks, but this is not the case here (fortunately, anyway any rule can be abused). One can't know everyone's personal life.
Scott Nichols (2014-02-15 15:42:10)
Standard time control abusers
I share your sentiments Garvin. I have, and still am playing many of these guys. It seems that they want to win points by extending the game as long as possible and hope to win by the other player either quits, gives gup chess, or dies. Another problem is players who reach a dead lost position, even one move before mate and then just quit moving altogether.
Garvin Gray (2014-02-15 08:59:20)
Standard time control abusers
Ok, I have long had enough of this and since Thib believes that everything is a ok, it is time to start naming the abusers and their actions. Perhaps that will force Thib to start taking action against these people, because I, for at least one player, have had a bloody gutful of this player wasting my life.
The player concerned is: Mariusz Maciej Broniek and the game in question is: https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=71232
He has repeatedly made all his moves in the last 5 days of the time control, then let his time run down to the 5 days and then made another 10 moves and rinse-repeat and will do it again.
Mariusz is clearly able to move faster, but is deciding to 'game' the time control in an attempt to either annoy the S*** out of me, or hope that I will resign.
The significance of this game is that whoever wins, wins the tourney and all the e points, totalling 48 e points. I am +10 ahead and it is time Thibault stepped in and put a stop to this behaviour.
Either Thibault applies the 'bringing the game into disrepute rule' against players like this, by firstly giving a warning and then declaring the game lost, or Thibault makes it clear he stands on the side of those who seek to abuse and 'game' the time control and does not give a stuff about the lives of the members who they continue to stuff over.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-13 13:30:26)
Standard time control abusers
George, the main reason why no tournaments enough can start is that the number of new players slowly decreases for a while... I tried several things to solve this problem and it didn't work, now I'm trying other things but believe me, I'm doing my possible. The thing is that it takes time (particularly for Google) :/
Garvin Gray (2014-02-12 14:57:59)
Standard time control abusers
I found it difficult on that site to find the time controls for correspondence chess. Also I noticed that the rules forbid engine use. Which does compromise comparisons to this site.
Josef Riha (2014-02-12 09:09:44)
Standard time control abusers
For completely different time controls look at chesshere.com!
Garvin Gray (2014-02-11 11:42:25)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
I would go as far as to say that it is time to abandon the standard time control divisions completely.
George Clement (2014-02-10 20:37:01)
Withdrawal from all standard time events
I agree with Garvin that this would be a great standard time control.
"
20 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days, followed by 10 moves in 40 days and then 15 days plus 1 day per move from move 41. "
Why don't we try it? Thib what say you?
George Clement (2014-02-10 20:26:55)
Standard time control abusers
Thib, I for one agree with Garvin. Currently I believe the reason that no new m or sm tours have started in months is because of the time control abuse. There is no way it should take a modern computer and analyst 30 days to come up with 10 moves. They wait 30 days play 10 fast moves and are gone for 30 days again. It's one of the main reason play on this site is going down. n'est ce pas?
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-08 16:11:32)
Standard time control abusers
Changing the time control will not avoid the ways to abuse it... And we can always complexify rules (e.g. vacation) but it will always be possible to use it to gain time on difficult moves. All this reminds me the way we are governed in France, with the well known no-results...
Finally, I must say that you often had very good ideas for this site (even if many cannot be used yet because we have no players enough) but I think that your view on time controls is really subjective, probably most of us are really ok with the current rules and we can observe alternatives (iccf, wbccc, other sites).
Garvin Gray (2014-02-08 11:05:53)
Standard time control abusers
Thib, I have not replied to this because this item has been discussed before and I feel that you are not serious in stopping this issue.
There have been discussions in changing the time control, or changing the vacation rules, and other such discussions, and on each and every occasion you have said that there will be no change.
I have been left with the conclusion that you are on the side of the time control abusers and endorse their behaviour and that it is acceptable to have other players lives wasted for 30 days each 40 day period.
I have presented proposal after proposal to stamp out this scourge and you will not do anything about it.
You have the ability to do so and can act immediately.
Thibault de Vassal (2014-02-04 15:37:11)
Standard time control abusers
Time controls are the only rules... and rules are dedicated to be abused, early or lately. That's the same in life, unfortunately, noone can hope to stop it.
But we can discuss examples (without mentioning names, that's not useful IMO) to try to improve it - while avoiding to complicate it too much.
There are 100 results for Tanda in wikichess.
Giovanni Tanda (1675)
d4 d5 Bf4 c5 e3 Nf6
Transpose to wikichess #17410#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
Giovanni Tanda (2073)
e4 e5 f4 exf4 Nf3 d6 Bc4 h6 d4 g5 O-O Bg7
Transpose to wikichess #60247#
============
Contributors : Giovanni Tanda
[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 !
|
Ortiz, Clodomiro (DOM) [member # 9683] Correspondence chess : 2438 FSM Ranked # 61 in the rating list. Rating history : No change this year. Advanced chess : 2350 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 |  |