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 42 results for Vidal Lionel in the games.
Game_13004 Game_13003 Game_13002 Game_13001 Game_13000 Game_12994 Game_9548 Game_9546 Game_9544 Game_9541 Game_9537 Game_9532 Game_9317 Game_9315 Game_9313 Game_9310 Game_9306 Game_9301 Game_6854 Game_6852 Game_6850 Game_6847 Game_6843 Game_6838 Game_5111 Game_5110 Game_5108 Game_5105 Game_5101 Game_5096 Game_1048 Game_1047 Game_1046 Game_1042 Game_1038 Game_1033 Game_817 Game_816 Game_815 Game_811 Game_807 Game_802
Here are 6 results for Vidal Tomas in the games.
Game_22931 Game_22929 Game_22927 Game_22924 Game_22920 Game_22915
There are at least 45 results for Vidal in the forum.
Lazaro Munoz (2010-01-31 11:54:48)
SuperGMs watch Corr?!
The Vidalina-Kabachev games goes:
[Event "WC-2006-F-00005"]
[Site "LSS"]
[Date "2007.9.12"]
[Round ""]
[White "Vidalina, Franjo"]
[Black "Kabachev, Andrey"]
[Result "0-1"]
[Eco ""]
[Annotator ""]
[Source ""]
1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 e5 6.Ndb5 d6 7.Bg5 a6 8.Na3 b5 9.Bxf6 gxf6 10.Nd5 Bg7 11.Bd3 Ne7 12.Nxe7 Qxe7 13.c4 f5 14.O-O O-O 15.Qh5 Rb8 16.exf5 e4 17.Rae1 Bb7 18.Qg4 Rfe8 19.cxb5 d5 20.bxa6 Bc6 21.b3 Kh8 22.Nc2 Bc3 23.Be2 Qf6 24.Rd1 Rg8 25.Qf4 d4 26.Bc4 d3 27.Ne1 Be5 28.Qe3 Rg5 29.g3 Rxf5 30.Ng2 Rg8 31.Rc1 Bd4 32.Qd2 Rf3 33.Rce1 Rgxg3 0-1
Interestingly Shirov played 23. Qh3 in his game. Rybka thought the move absolutely sucked and would have responded with the material grab: 23...Bxe1 24. Rxe1 Qc5 25. Bf1 Qxc2 giving it +0.11. It thought that white was much better before 23. Qh3 with the simple 23. Be2 (as was played by Vidalina).
Vidalina may have resigned prematurely since after 34. hxg3 Rxg3 35. Re3, Black is better and has some attacking chances there does not seem to be knock-out move.
Vjacheslav Perevozchikov (2010-01-31 03:50:01)
SuperGMs watch Corr?!
1) Ruppel,Frank (2144) - Zwicker,Thomas (2186) [B33]
GER-ch36 V7 email GER email, 29.03.2004, 0-1
2) Vidalina,Franjo (2252) - Kabachev,Andrey (2184)
WC-2006-F-00005 LSS, 12.09.2007, 0-1
3) Klatt,Otto (2470) - Pivinsky,Evgeny Grigorievich (2457) [B33]
Baltic Sea tt8 ICCF webserver, 01.03.2008, 1/2
IMO Magnus meant the game #2 ;)
Lionel Vidal (2007-10-21 11:24:52)
Is a one day limit mandatory?
Playing three rounds in one day is already very hard. What would you think of running a tournament for several days (like one round per day): that would mean, say, 4 or 5 days that could be picked from 2 ou 3 consecutives weeks?
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-27 23:09:46)
Xiangqi
The number of french xianqi players is of course nothing compare to the number of french chess players (which is BTW quite low compared to other country :-( )... but with the increased interest in China, for mainly economic reasons, xianqi may become more popular here too... consider for instance that the number of chinese language students is greatly increasing these last years...
Of course the popularity of chess will remain certainly much higher!
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-27 19:42:35)
Xiangqi
The fact that xiangqi is the most played game in china (much more played than Go!) is enough to make it the most played game in the world :-)
But apart from asian countries, you can find many players in the USA, and even in France, where the 2005 world championship was held!
Computers are quite good at xiangqi (the best program is french!) but not good enough yet for the very best players: the game-tree complexity of xiangqi is half way between chess and shogi, but the evaluation functions in xiangqi have specific problems (roughly speaking, the relative values of the pieces evolve much more than in chess during a game). Anyway I agree than in a few years, humans will probably loose in tournament time.
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-27 15:57:30)
Chess and Xiangqi
A very interresting article in Chesscafe (www.chesscafe.com) by K.Müller on some endgame similarities in chess and xiangqi.
Xiangqi is great chess game (one of the greatest, even if I am quite weak at it; and in any cases, by far the greatest chess game by the number of players :-)): in short time limits (standard is 20 minutes per players) you can't beat that game for a exciting tactical mélée... and then if both palyers survive, the endgame is full of subtilities...
BTW *all* K.Müller articles on that site are a must-read! :-)
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-25 11:24:50)
Computer Go
While I agree that programming Go is much more a problem of algorithm than a hardware one, I think you underestimate the theorical difficulties.
First, a word on the alluded new approach (BTW the french edition of 'Pour la Science' has an article on this algorithm this month, but not very involved): it seems promising only because that program regularly beats other program using what we can call a traditional approach: tree exploration combined with pattern recognition and some clever splitted evaluation function. That is fine, but does not mean much for human, considering the poor level of all these programs.
AFAIY the very best program is said to be at low pro-dan level on a 9x9 (without any concrete real test match, that is with money at stakes... but let's suppose it is true). The problem to play on 19x19 is that the nature of the game dramatically changes: in short the tactics is more complicated and the once very basic strategy of 9x9 becomes overwhelming! There is still no known algorithm to tackle that problem. Such algorithm could exist of course, but don't hold your breath :-)
Now I am quite eager to read the tests and pubications on these researches :-)
The neural network approach is interresting but is more or less stalling (again AFAIY) in recent programs mainly because of a fundamental flaw: the tuning of the gap functions. In Backgammon, where this approach works very well, these functions are tuned by simulation: basically, the program plays many, many games against himself and in a way learns (that is tunes its network) depending on the results. As you may guess, this can not work in Go because of the complexity of the branch tree. So the problem is how to tune the network (and 'by hand' cannot be a soution, believe me, considering the number of nodes and the type of the functions being commonly used!)
Of course I simplified a lot and the maths behind these kind of algorithm are involved enough (and very interresting :-)) that someone may find new ideas that will revive one path or another. But my feeling is that the pros of go have nothing to fear for a long time...
You have to consider that the very best programs are not beaten, but crushed, by multi-dans amateurs, you know, the kind of player a top pro will beat at 5 stones while blitzing and at 9 stones if some money is at stakes :-)
Now I may be wrong, and I remember in the 80s many people saying the same thing for chess, and betting on the fact that a program could never beat a good player in at least 50 years :-)... but at that time, I did not agree :-)) mainly because the algorithms were more or less basically known already... the 80s hardware was a problem, but a technical and not theorical one...
Sorry for that too long reply... I can't believe I typed so much... that must be my new keyboard, and the fond memories of some past jobs ... :-)
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-23 18:59:07)
Not too up-to-date article...
Computers are much better in chess now than in 1998 ( :-) or :-( ... hum maybe :-( for me...). I am not sure that a player, even J. Edwards (very good player and a good chess writer too!) could be sure anymore to CC-outplay an engine running 24h/day on a modern hardware platform. He might win, yes, but might only IMHO.
Nowadays, many CC players (most?) consider that using an engine is *not* cheating, and I am so sure that *most* sites, as said in the article, do prohibit such a use. At least it could be noted that the strongest players seem to play in ICCF (or maybe iecg ... and in FICGS of course :-)) where engines are allowed. (and this is good IMO, not per se but, as it is often recalled, because their ban could not be correctly enforced)
Anyway I am looking forward to reading the next article to use more effenciently chessbase :-)
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-12 17:48:07)
Chat and SSL
Ok, I reinit Opera passwd base (in french 'la baguette' :-)) and now it works fine!
I am not sure what happened, but the security increase is certainly worth it :-)
Lionel Vidal (2007-03-12 17:17:09)
Chat and SSL
Hello, Is there a link between SSL and the chat window? What I type in the chat form does not appear anymore after sending.
Maybe it is my browser... I'll check that.
Lionel Vidal (2007-01-21 17:49:41)
Go and Chess
About your point number 3... A chess world champion could very well note its moves before playing and yet be mated in one move :-)
In Go pro-matches, the moves are usually recorded during play by another (younger :-) pro, who has also to deal with time keeping: it makes sense not to disturb gods at play by basic housekeepings :-). I remember an article on the WEB counting the numbers of obvious blunders in go pro-games, and it was *very* low compared to chess.
Concerning your point 2, it is not quite true AFAIK: most top pros run a school of younger pros or wanabe pros who play and analyse numerous games on the Master supervision (He does rarely play with students and then it is a great honour!). So a master does not not really analyse alone, but discuss many ideas with others.
Concerning your point 4, I think that increasing the number of games would change the playing calendar too much and a pro cannot play many more games by year without consequences on his results... even at my very low level, I find a go game *much* more tiring than a chess one (here I mean a face to face game, not correspondence or server go... something I still don't manage to get used to :-)
BTW, I also find that recovering from a loss in go is much more difficult (again I mean face to face Go) than in chess: maybe because of a higher involment, maybe it is just me. What do others players think?
Another point is that a pro is paid by the federation (a fixed amount depending on its rank, not linked with his gains in tournaments that are much more important), and have to give some services to the community: lessons, conferences, teaching games... and so on... and this is more true for the lowest ranked pros!
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-09 21:24:05)
scrabble+
Your idea for scrabble is interesting but the luck seems still there (not that luck is a problem per se IMO): even if the letters are shown, their very order is luck dependend ; and the only thing that really changes is that you can forsee the letters of your opponent and play accordingly... and so the game is actually more simple (!) IMO, more calculating prone and less strategic because you remove some possibilities, all as likely, in your move tree.
To be more concrete, suppose you can play a scrabble for, say, 75 points, and open the grid for the opponent, or play a nice glue-word for, say 40 points, but let the grid closed enough. In your proposed game, I just have to look at my opponent possibilities, as I know his letters... I calculate one, two or more moves ahead and say, ok, I can open the grid and still win by 10 points. In the normal game, I have to estimate, if the openess of the grid is worth the 35 points difference and that means calculating the rough propabilities to score points on the letters I open, considering what my opponent already played, if he seems waiting for some specific letters, or maybe he is bluffing, but then by experience I know that the double 'e' I let is not very valuable, considering that only four expensive letters remain...and so on: the game seems much more strategic and interesting for me.
Of course, I can loose because my letters are really bad... but that is quite uncommon on a whole game for good players, and almost meaningless on a match with, say, five set or more. (remember that the goal is not to make words, but to score points, or to prevent your opponent doing so on the grid, something a good player can almost always do whatever his letters).
For the chess engine, I did try some, and frankly my level in blitz play is so terrible that gnuchess is enough for me for a quick match:-). Now I tried Fruit and Hiarcs on some of my correspondence games and even on my modest scale, I was not very happy with the result: they did suggest others moves than mine, but that were moves I would never have played (maybe (surely?) I am wrong, but I am not sure)... so what would be the point to waste computer time? Even if they may suggest a good move I missed, I would still feel uneasy to play something 'outside' my own mind... old fashion maybe, but that is how I have fun in chess :-) I still like the waiting of the reply, while wondering if I made an oversight! (that being said, I used and will still use the tablebases reading engine when needed: very useful at some points :-)
But then maybe my biais against engines made me use them badly :-) Never mind, I am not going to apologize for that to a silicon piece of junk :-) And if the beast feels somehow insulted and asks for a real time match, let's just play Go!
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-09 14:34:04)
scrabble+?!
I am not sure this scrabble+ would be a better game than the current face to face competitive version. (the rules imply a game of skill; but also of risk management because of the clock and the correctness you may loose, but willingly give up, in a form of bluff very like poker).
The point is, why would one change a game where players can beat computers if one has enough skill (because computers are still bad at valuating the level of openess of a scrabble position), for a game where a searchable tree is (in theory) enough to play the very best moves?
The game then becomes IMO quite void of fun in correspondence play, because the player skill adds nothing to the computer evaluation. Note the difference in chess, where most correspondence players are convinced they do add and choose something worth improving the play. (although I have just give up the idea to buy an engine... gnuchess is enough for me as a sparring partner, and correspondence analysis, I let it to my shaky brain... for shaky analysis :-), but more fun!... And thank you Thibault, you convinced me to play correspondence chess again :-))
The deepness of the game is another wonder: in the current game I have to ponder many possibilities, an probalistic equipartition (sorry for the bad translation) (and good players always keep the count of the remaining letters)... it seems much more complex, though less analytical, than just wandering along a calculation tree?!
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-02 09:54:32)
A lone engine in CC :-)
Suppose I make the following test (it has certainily be proposed before, but let's do it again, for the fun of the argument):
- I buy a recent engine (say the new Fritz10)
- I play in some CC tournaments (I do not want to pay fees, so let's say, here at FICGS of course :-), and at iecg)
- I choose the first moves of all my games based on some statistics made on a CC base (just to avoid some openings statistically bad in CC)
- starting from a few moves before the engine goes out of its opening book (to be defined, maybe 4 moves) I let my average computer run 10 hours by move (around one night per move... I know, I sleep too much :-)
- I *always* play the very move the engine finds as best
- I play as many tournaments as I can, considering the time constraint that limits the number of games (just to get a meaningful rating as fast as possible)
Now, what rating do you think I can reach at most, strictly following these guidelines?
(note that if I know some basic maths to do the stats, I do not even have to know chess rules... although a basic knowledge is assumed to ease the play in practice)
Are you ready to bet on your guess ? :-)
In pratice, the test does not work, because the tester dies from boredom long before he gets any rating :-))
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-02 08:55:46)
Intuition?! What for ?
3 out of 4? Really? Which test-matches are you refering to?
Leotard made a test (won :-) and with grand manner) but that was years ago, and besides, he is one of the very best :-)
Then there is the match against a panel of different engines by Ham: even if he does not play at the same level than Leotard, he is quite a good player!... and the results were very far from 3 to 4 for human :-( (that was also years ago!) Then there are the hydra matches... :-( the results are not very good also for humans and the game comments are very instructive: against first class expertise chess knowledge and intuition, the 'dump' brute force machine managed to handle quite well complex ending positions...at least as well as all correspondence players but the very best (I would say the top 20 at most :-()
Maybe there is some recent test I am not aware of?
But the point really is: who can play like, say, Leotard? Of course, he says he can crush computers, just by playing them like 2500 rated players... well, I can believe that... but when I play a fritz-push-button opponent, I am only a 2300 player... have I to use also an engine to have a chance (and one game out of ten, be very proud to have chosen another move than one of the few the engine suggested as best and still not have lost... ok, just kidding :-)?
It can be still fun, but I think it is not the same kind of chess Leotard alludes to when speaking of himself in his after match interview :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-12-01 21:42:25)
Intuition?! what for?
Don't you think intuition in any abstract game is in fine just a nice word to hide our (that is human) limitation in analytical power?
In many very good chess books (see for instance Watson opus), intuition is indeed shown as not an adequate compensation for a good, reliable, concrete analysis. Of course, for us humans, it is still very useful because the experience of already seen patterns may suggest the very best move in a given position, without even any calculation... but if you had the power to make a complete analysis, would you still use your intuition?
My feeling (and I am not very happy with that, but I don't see any evidence to contradict it) is that in 98% of positions, the brute-force stupid way of computers is already deep enough in the tree of possibilities to find the very best move (at least in any practical sense)... and the 2% left is only interresting for correspondence players... and then, only for the very best who can claim enough expertise, or enough time :-)
Now I am sure chess can still be fun: the old and only true chess way has just been re-edited: "tempête sur l'échiquier" (sorry I don't know the name of the english version)... at least I feel competitive enough :-))
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-22 14:17:20)
Scrabble
Duplicate scrabble is a form a competitive scrabble where each player (more than 500 in some big tournaments!) has his own set and play the same letters, chosen at random by a referee. The goal is to score the maximum at each move. The referee, in case of multiple max scores, chooses the possibility that opens the grid more, then all players play that move and the play goes. The very best players end usually with very few points under the theorical top score!
Note that a computer always gets the top score (obviously!) in that form a competition, and so cannot loose. But in a duell, because of the strategic aspects, the best humans may still beat silicon monsters :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-22 13:51:55)
Scrabble?
Just to point out that scrabble, when played in duplicate, is 0% chance (but I vastly prefer the game as a duell, despite some luck, easily almost cancelled by a 10 games match, because of the various blocking and counting strategies involved :-)).
Same thing for bridge BTW.
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 14:12:35)
Komi 7.5
Well, in France too, it is officially 7.5 in tournaments, with counting based on the chinese method (and you have to ensure that both players played the same number of stones), but with no provision for complex cases (multi-kos, complex sekis...). In practice, it works!
I wonder if the japanese way of counting makes a difference in komi value... I'll check that...
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 14:00:19)
French Go Federation rating
Here is a link that shows an example of rating that include handicap-go games
http://ffg.jeudego.org/echelle/echelle_algo.php
Just food for thought, but I like this system because of the balance betwenn fairness and challenge involved.
(sorry but these pages are in french only, but maybe we could check the ratings formulae in AGA?)
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 13:47:55)
Komi vs handicap
IMO, Thibault is quite right: it would make no sense to increase Komi instead of playing with handicap stones.
To give points or to give stones is not the same: the very nature of handicap stones is pedagogic, that is to help *both* players to improve. Go strategy is complex, but can often been seen as a delicate balance between power (thickness) and territory (points). Handicap stones are put on Hoshi on purpose: to help the weaker player to build and use thickness, the most difficult concept to master compare to territory, where a beginner can actually count concrete points (or so he believes at first :-)
Playing at 9 handicap stones, or giving, say, 100 points komi is not the same and never will be: the weaker player has no chance with such a komi, because he will have no anchor to help his stones live and will probably be completely destroyed... but much worse, he cannot improve his play easily because he'll never be in a position where he could *try* to think strategically.
IMO, true go is not non-handicap go, but a fair game where the tactical and strategic true nature of the game is preserved. How could we say that, for instance, Dosaku 'Go Saint' games are not true go, when he was at least one stone stronger than all his fellow pro players, giving them Black (no komi at that time) or one,two stones?
The beauty of handicap go is that IMO it *is* still true go :-) You can compare to chess where giving a piece, say a N as Lasker used to do, change the strategic nature of the game through a controlled exchange policy.
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-21 13:03:54)
Oops, sorry!
After rereading my last message, I saw I forgot a negation that change the whole meaning: I meant a komi change would *not* occur soon in the Japanese scene IMO!!
Otherwise my whole point and argument is nonsense... anyway, while I would prefer 6.5 (just to play the very first move identifying myself to some of my Go hereos... come on, just grow up :-), I can live with the still much uncommon 7.5 :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-20 21:57:03)
Go handicap and rating
Is handicap Go really nonsensical in rated tournaments?
While it seems so in a world championship, where the aim is to determine the stronger player in an absolute sense, why should it be so in a tournament, where the aim is to determine the best player in a relative sense... hum, not a very clean or clear sentence, but I hope you got the idea :-)
In face to face Go, in most amateur tournaments, it is not a problem, and you can win or loose a tournament, win or loose points, playing with an handicap (some tournaments set a limit lower than 9 in the number of handicap stones). I do not know the formulae used to compute the knew ratings, but in practice it works well. (and the same thing works also in Shogi tournaments)
Before WWII, even pros played with handicap (one or two stones at most, more commonly with a fixed color and no komi) and that *for money*!! Nowadays this is not the case anymore: maybe the increase of pro-tournament prizes change the noble way to be the best of two players fighting *their best* at their *respective* level!
Anyway, I think such an idea may be interresting to motivate players: when weaker, I will fight my best because I have a chance to win, and when stronger, I *have* to fight well :-)
We could think of a rating system where you play your first, say, 20 games without handicap to get a starting rating, and then to receive or give handicaps automatically in tournaments. We could then consider a rating as fixed after a bunch of 20 more games...
Or any other system that will always generate tense and dangerous games! That will be, at least for me, a great motivation to play more :-)
(but then I do not care much for my rating :-))
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-20 21:29:31)
You seems in advance :-)
Well, considering the results of last year pro games (almost a perfect 50-50 result, according to my rather large but admittedly incomplete database) I am not sure a komi change from 6.5 will occur soon, at least in the japanese pro scene... And the number of recent games in gobase that ends in 1 or 1/2 points difference is astonishing :-) (not really significant, I know, as pros have the capacity to keep a tiny edge till the end, reducing it to simplify the game... but still :-))
Anyway, for us, simple and humble go mortals, that does not change much :-)
(but even at my low level I tend to be more aggressive in my fuseki while playing with an opponent of my level or stronger when the komi is 7.5 instead of say 5.5... so considering the increase/decrease (black/white) of aggressive attitude, maybe it is important for most of us because the feeling of a game might eventually change)
Lionel Vidal (2006-11-20 16:40:27)
7.5 or 6.5 ?
In most recent pro games (eg. last meijin match) the komi was 6.5 if I remember well.
Oh, but that was japanese rule ?!? Is that where the difference comes from? hum, I am sure I *knew* that... :-(
Lionel Vidal (2006-09-09 23:08:00)
Tavli
Is tavli the greek version of backgammon? I am not sure of the specific rules of that variant and I do not think Jellyfish could play it but I may be wrong.
BTW I find real time backgammon (by server or not) a great fun to play!
Lionel Vidal (2006-09-09 16:39:44)
Correspondence backgammon?
Where would be the fun? I mean, a program like Jellyfish could give me in a few hours by simulation the best move in a probability sense without any effort. Of course I can still play aginst the odds, but what would be the point to play inferior moves in the long run? (of course you can play, say in a casino, knowing you will loose in the long run and still have fun (I don't but that's only me), but in a strategic game?)
Compare to chess: an engine, say Fritz, can give what its evaluation function marks as the best move... but I can still play another one, because I see a better plan, or because I set up an ending I know I will draw (or win :-)... in short the proposed move may not be the best one, and I still have to make a choice... In other words, I may still have the illusion I have a chance :-)
The cases where Jellyfish will not give the *tried* and *validated* best moves are very rare with today computers... so where would be the fun being a button-man or being crushed in the long run by such one?
Lionel Vidal (2006-09-09 10:40:13)
arimaa ?!
Arimaa may be a good choice too: it may be played on a chessboard, it is deep, fun and invented precisely to make any computer ridiculous :-) (Just like with Go and ChuShogi it is a very satisfying ego-boost-experience to feel vastly superior once in a while to even the best silicon brains :-))
And another point is that I don't know any site where you could play correpondence arimaa with a server. (whereas you can play Go or Chusogi at pbem server for instance... with even a graphical interface but not as comfortable as FICGS!)
Oh but wait... if you add a game, you'll have to change the name FICGS ? :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-09-08 16:58:11)
ChuShogi would get my vote.
ChuShogi is by far my favorite chess-like game: as deep as Go strategically, more profound than chess tactically (at least on par with big chess) and great fun to play. Like Go a very elaborate handicap system does exist.
Its main drawback is that, just like go, you have to invest some time to learn it to fully appreciate the game: chess, xianqi or even shogi are maybe more immediately grasped by beginners while in ChuShogi or in Go, it may take a few games (or more likely many games) before you realise what you should strive to do or not to do, and what that &#@@# game is all about :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-09-08 16:46:26)
Draughts is not solved!
Just a minor correction: draughts (that is the international version) is not solved at all! The best computers fight on par with the very best humans now and will probably crush all human beings in a few years... maybe just like chess :-( but that does not mean the game (neither chess!) is solved!
Checkers is another related game where the best computers (like chinook) have been crushing all humans for some years now... but even that does not mean it is solved in any game theory meaning.
Note that I do not mean that draughts or checkers should be included here :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-03 09:50:52)
Chinese rules
After reading the new rules (nice :-)), I have two suggestions:
- maybe you should cleary state that repetition of position leads to a loss (or does it? it is the way I understand the wording, but either way is possible), which is not the case in chinese rules (AFAIK at least in some versions, you just loose your turn).
- maybe you should announce somewhere (not in the rules of course) whether the already running games have to follow the new rules. Knowing the applied komi is important, even in fuseki.
Now let's try them :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 18:12:34)
Hash keys and draws
Just to be sure I was clear: the aim of hash keys is just to enforce, I should really say to program, the rule of non repetition of positions; i.e. kos or super kos are irrelevant: if the resulting position occured before, then a move is not legal.
Then I am not sure how a draw could happen: let's say there is a superko running somewhere; either both players eventually pass, letting the situation unsettled, with the unsettled stones declared alive.... or they play the kos and sooner or later (ok, later in case of superko!) the position will repeat, hence a forced pass, or be solved...
Do you have an example of situation that will not eventually lead to a repetition?
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 17:58:20)
Go rules
That is ok for me: you rule :-)
And anyway, the domain of application of these special rules is indeed quite narrow!
Just a question to better understand your choices: what is the point of seki special scoring rule?
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-02 16:28:11)
Go rules
It's me again :-)
What is the point of the special cases you chose? Why not simply follow the chinese rule? I reread it yesterday and compared to what you say:
- reappearance of the same board position is forbidden (note that should be easy to check by computer with hash keys associated to positions)
- Seki is not really a special case in chinese rule (it is only in territory scoring): you count stones and enclosed vacant points; others vacant points are share equally.
- Winner is determined by comparing one's score to 180 1/2 (half number of points of the board). - Komi: 2 3/4 points are deducted from black's score and added to white's. - After both sides have agreed to end the game (that is after a double pass), if any unsettled positions remain on the board, both sides' stones are treated as alive (that is neat and solve most drawing problems) - Basically a player that makes an illegal move loses his turn (i.e. in effect passes): that includes repeating the same position (why should white win in such a case?).
That sounds much cleaner IMO.
The only possible draw may be some very complex round robin kos, where the position keeps changing, but I guess we can forget it (and it should eventually been resoved by double pass anyway, even if one side is unhappy: see the preceding neat point).
BTW you can probably find the full text on the Web (I have only a paper version from the 1988 official rules of Chinese Weiqi Association).
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 22:21:52)
Bug?
It seems that the postings are sometimes not in chronological order ? (see the last two posts)
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 22:17:30)
Go rules
I don't quite understand what kind of problems with draws remains with FICGS (sic!) rules: as passing is not allowed, if you add the non repetition of the same whole board position and a non integer komi, I do not see how a draw is still possible.
BUT... this solution does actually not solve anything as I don't think you can forbid passing (as a matter of fact, I checked the official japanese, chinese, new-zealand, AGA (USA) and SST rules: pass is allowed and needed)
The main reason is, IMO, that you need a legal way to end the game (double pass). And yes there are situations where the best move for BOTH players is NOT to move at all in the area: the simplest case I can think of is thousand-year kos, which in the case of japanese rule usually end in seki.
Note that a single pass (that is the game goes on after it) can change the difference in scores in area mode: the AGA rule introduces the concept of pass stone to compensate and insists on white making the last move (if necessary with an additional pass and pass stone) to ensure that the total number of stones played by the two players are equal!
(BTW this is one of the reasons, admitedly far behind familiarity, why I prefer the japanese rule in face to face go)
To sum things up (!!), while I agree that FICGS could develop its own set of rules, I feel that the subject is too complex and error-prone, and has been long, and still is, disputed by highly competent authorities : why not use the result of their work?
I would add that the point of all this is rather moot if you consider that situation like triple ko and alii are indeed rather rare: why not stricly stick to, say, the official chinese rule, and replay the game by referee decision in the rare cases where neither playing side will yield?
oh, but I could also check what they do in the kiseido server ?!?
oh, and do take what I say with great caution: I don't feel and I am certainly not competent enough on the subject! Any other advice over there? :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:56:41)
Replacement
I will be glad to play in that tournament: first time I will not play go face to face... I forsee an nice new experience!
Best wishes.
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:47:57)
FICS, no FIGCS, no, FIGSG, er...
Despite all my efforts I still think faster than my fingers, or that my keyboard, or both, and the Post button is so easy to reach without thinking at all :-)
I'll try to do better!
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:21:00)
FIGS rules
Thank you, the link through the help section is just fine. Sorry I did not see it at first.
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:08:53)
A missing link to the rules
Hello,
Would it be possible to have a direct link to the rules on the menu list of your home page in FICGS?
I would find useful to be able to access the rules at the same level of waiting lists, tournaments, forum and so on.
Or maybe there is an easy way I did not see?
(This is nitpicking, the site is already great :-))
Best wishes.
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 15:02:56)
Infinite repetition
Well, it might work, but that seems unfair to black IMO, because it creates discrepancies in the rules depending on you being sente or gote.
Admitedly, the komi can be seen as such discrepancy, but all it does is forcing sente to be bit more aggresive, the stategy and tactics, the feeling of the game being globally the same. What you propose would induce a kind of strategic play on the rules... not really Go anymore!
I realise I may not be clear: as an extreme example of rules discrepanies, just consider Renju. Here the rules are different for sente and gote and the strategy is indeed really different for both! While this is fine in Renju, because actually it became the heart of the game, I do not think Go needs it.
Besides, it would spoil somehow IMO the aesthetic feeling of the game flow.
Just my opinions of course :-)
Lionel Vidal (2006-06-01 12:46:14)
Go rules
Hello,
Even if a well chosen komi rules out scoring draws, you still have the problem of infinite repetition.
Traditionally, a game in which a triple ko or other infinitely repeating position arises is annulled, or treated as draw or replayed.
Some rules (New Zealnd, USA, SST) deal with these positions by stating that a player cannot make exactly the same position on the whole board twice. (Note that it is then not always easy without computer assistance to determine the legality of a move).
The chinese rule (at least the 1988 official one) also forbids reappearance of the same board position, but in some situation this is not enough to prevent a draw: in some cases neither player want to start a sequence and keep passing to avoid solving a situation at their disadvantage. (and to forbid passes triggers others worse problems...).
As you see, the situation is quite complex, and while rules of Go seem simple, their precise definition is not easy. In practice, you eventually have to rely on the sportmanship of the players or on a referee decision.
Personally I have played till now only under the japanese rule, and in case of problems (very rare as this rule is quite detailled, but then rather complex in its exceptions handling), a senior player says the truth, and, at least in Japan, this truth is undisputed and becomes the laws :-)... quite simple!
Lionel
Lionel Vidal (2006-05-31 21:15:10)
Weiqi komi
Hello,
Thanks for that link: it is indeed a good reading. I would suggest also to read the chapter on the rules of Go in 'The go player's almanac' (Bozulich 2001), that gives much more details.
By reading these, you can see that half a point komi is indeed quite uncommon :-)
But an important point is that it should probably depend on the chosen rule, or more precisely on the counting mode, area or territory.
BTW, what is the counting rules here in FICGS ?
Note that this rule question may be quite critical on some life-and-death situation and may change the result of a game! And some of the simplest cases (like bent four in the corner) can arise not too uncommonly.
Lionel
Lionel Vidal (2006-05-31 19:35:58)
Go komi
Oops! sorry. I meant 'brand new user'
Best wishes, Lionel
Lionel Vidal (2006-05-31 19:33:20)
Go komi / Rules
Hello to all,
As a brand user FICGS user, I first read the rules (of course!), and I am wondering about the komi value of half a point. AFAIK it is not very common, unlike, say, 5.5. Is there a specific reason for such a komi value?
Best wishes, Lionel
There are 0 results for Vidal in wikichess.
[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 |  |