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 0 results for Ye Feng in the games.
Here are 0 results for Ye Ziqing in the games.
Here are 0 results for Ye Kenneth in the games.
There are at least 100 results for Ye in the forum.
George Jempty (2026-06-06 20:54:00)
Cheating / Forfeiting
And yet Thib continues TO DO NOTHING. Fuck FICGS
Ulises Pineda (2026-06-01 03:15:35)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Let me play devil's advocate here: It makes sense that all these players take a vacation at the same time if they're from the same family, presumably the family goes together on vacation and are expected to come back together as well.
What shouldn't be allowed is if they play each other and let the game run out of time to give the win to one of them, that's not random, but I haven't seen that happening, anyway.
George Jempty (2026-05-28 12:45:46)
Cheating / Forfeiting
See, this is the sort of response that has led to my disillusionment with this site. These players, Pech, Pechova, Mach, etc. SHOULD BE BANNED. I have hated playing against them this several months.
George Jempty (2026-05-28 12:36:54)
Berlin Defense
I used to play the Deferred Schliemann. I used to steer for a line in which the analog without 3...a6 had been played as Black by Lasker, a line involving ...Bd6. I tried it in a US Correspondence championship qualifying round in the 90s but didn't play accurately at all in the opening after that, this was a no-engines tournament (well it was the 90s anyway). But the game score made it's way into chessbase, and a Norwegian IM drew GM Sax with the line in 2005. So I was influencing theory way before the centaur/correspondence era ;) Also, in any case, I've been drawn to ...f5 lines for quite a while, I used to play the Latvian when I was a teenager, but now I've settled on the Modern Steinitz, with it's possibility for the Siesta, but I think overall is more sound than other lines involving ...f5, but still with plenty of winning chances; e.g. the Noah's Ark trap. As Black I play for a win, as White I try not to lose LOL
Ulises Pineda (2026-05-28 09:30:16)
Berlin Defense
OTB I like the Schliemann Defense against the Spanish, after 3...f5 black is completely fine and there's no winning line for white, but there are two other things. First, you can feel it in the air, Ruy Lopez players have spent a great deal of time studying it and they want to prove their superior knowledge aiming for lines where they win if black plays a small inaccuracy, which happens often and that's why they like playing it.
You take that away which is a psychological victory.
Second, they have two options, either they play fast and will most likely abandon the advantage because white needs accurate play to keep her edge, or they will sit to think on the best continuation, but after the position settles down it's equal and you come up with a huge advantage on the clock.
My favorite line is when you have your queen on d4 and they play Nxg6 because they're used to positions where capturing back allows white's queen to capture the rook on h8, only to find out they can't do that because it's protected by the queen! So they have to play Qxg6+ but after covering or moving the king black is already better!
It's as if I saw the Spanish die before my eyes like that, even if my wins are mostly on the clock, it has forced players to avoid playing it against me, because it's easier to go into some g3 and Bb2 stuff and beat me from there than figuring out how to play against 3...f5.
My only lament is its name, it would be so cool if it was the Schliemann Gambit, or Schliemann Counter-Attack or something that gives it justice.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-05-25 14:21:01)
Call referee about game ...
Rule 11.5 says: "Finally, if players do not agree the result, please let the clock run out of time, a referee will confirm or correct the result later."
So yes, I can set the clocks fairly to fix a situation... It happened in some cases and it will happen again.
Maybe I should add such an example in the rules to reassure.
Garvin Gray (2026-05-20 05:01:42)
Call referee about game ...
Well. In the two cases mentioned above, it seems that both Herbert and I believe that there was at least a need to reply and a decision to be made.
And in our opinion, the worst decision was to 'go silent'.
If we take a similar situation in otb chess, and I imagine the same would be for go as well.
In an otb chess tournament, a player has an issue in their game, stops the clock and either raises their hand or comes over to the arbiters table to get their attention.
The arbiter would then come to the board and issue a ruling. Yes, sometimes their ruling would be to take no action, but at least the player knows that the arbiter has heard their asking for a ruling and the game proceeds.
In the two cases shown above, it seems that Herbert and I believe that we has occurred is that you have not even bothered to attend to our issue at all.
And that has left us dis-satisfied to the point where we are now having to raise it as a forum topic for everyone else to see.
Ulises Pineda (2026-05-13 10:25:32)
Berlin Defense
What else is there to play, though? If black tries to play the Berlin and you try to avoid it, it would have been best to avoid it with the Italian. The Italian remains a landmine to this day, with Stockfish at Depth 30 showing a white advantage and Depth 40 switching to a black one, in some positions, I'd be happy to play the Italian and become black instead of being white in the Berlin!
Against lower rated opposition, the Berlin is a nightmare, it's as if they have found a way to force a draw against you, but you're supposed to try to win as Black to prove your superior playing strength.
This all makes me want to abandon 1.e4 entirely, but I haven't found a convincing line for 1.d4 (to me the Ragozin is d4's Berlin), though I have the most wins with Nf3, I think, against creative players (those that avoid mainlines for fun) 1.e4 remains the best option, they will not defend with the Berlin.
It's a thing about not playing the board, but the opponent, one that wants to win as black will not play the Berlin, and then the Ruy Lopez is the best option.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-05-11 23:38:32)
Berlin Defense
Yes, #12 #104 & #105
Bogoljub Teverovski (2026-04-21 12:55:52)
Next thematic tournament
Yes, 1.b4 c6 is an option
Thomas Cranshoff (2026-04-16 15:43:46)
PGN
yes,and If I do, i have it. but how to put it in a program like chess lab for example
Thibault de Vassal (2026-04-16 13:24:19)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Indeed. I observe it for years, but obviously rating is not the motivation so...
Paul Guralivu (2026-04-16 10:51:02)
Cheating / Forfeiting
Pretty SUSPECT that 4 players, atleast 1 not part of the family,
take vacation AT 4 AM (in the MORNING!)... minutes or seconds from one-an-other!
George Jempty (2026-04-15 14:03:30)
Next thematic tournament
Next thematic suggestion, esp. as there are not yet any entries for 1.e4 e6 2.Qe2, is .... 1.b4 c6
George Jempty (2026-04-15 13:53:53)
Is rating just a number on this site?
Hello, I'd not responded earlier because I'd taken 45 days leave to begin the year, largely because of frustration around these very sorts of things. Even the 2300+ players do not enter 2200+ tournaments. It's not even because I want to keep drawing 2300+ players to inch my rating up, it's because I want the competition, to enrich my opening repertoire. Enriching my repertoire is the only reason I'm around here anymore, but not for long, not now that I've settled on 1.d4 and 2.g3
Alan Ludgate (2026-04-01 05:26:40)
Post-tickets FICGS
Thanks for this post. Here are my ideas.
The problem for the 2400+ rated players is:-
most have left or stopped playing (not sure why) - so those who want to play have to reduce their activity or (probably) lose rating points. This is leading to a downward spiral.
To get more games played, how about:-
1. Award rating points as prizes.
And/or 2. Allow players to buy rating points, say 30 per year, provided they play at least say 10 games that year.
And/or 3. Players who play no games in a year to lose say 30 rating points. Players who play say 10 or more games in a year to get 30 rating points reward.
Adjust the numbers after a trial period.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-03-13 23:17:02)
Post-tickets FICGS
The long answer:
FICGS story is a quite simple & classic one, the reasons why it's declining are quite obvious, and unfortunately the solutions aren't. A bit of story:
1. Luckily, FICGS.com was created when there were a demand, just after IECG stopped... It grew very quickly, and I was in a rush to code it (FICGS was the very first dynamic website I ran from A to Z), there were ideas from everywhere. FICGS.com was the shortest domain name available, but not a so good one. Quite hard to remember, hard to tell, not clear for search engines (unlike chess.com which is a perfect one). Maybe it was a mistake to choose it, I can't tell. Either it meant "Free Internet Chess Games Server" or "Free Internet Correspondence Games Server", so I added another game, Go (Weiqi), to FICGS, which is a quite heavy decision: After that, FICGS is not only a chess server anymore.
2. A few years after, there are several thousands players (a few hundreds active). The number of new players slowly decreases month after month but a few sponsors come. Obviously, the way I coded FICGS made it more and more difficult to fully update from a PHP version to another one, or to change it in deep. Even now, I'm not sure to regret it though cause I couldn't have done it differently, so it is what it is. At this time, chess.com was less interesting than FICGS (my taste), but success is already here thanks to a perfect marketing formula: best domain name & pay for options. On the contrary, I chose to keep FICGS completely free.
3. Chess engines explode, correspondence chess continues its evolution (human's thinking decreases in moves decision), finally I add another game that is in a hype: poker texas holdem. New sponsors come, I still play correspondence chess myself but now I play another game even more: Google. FICGS also extends this way and it works in some ways. At its peak, FICGS is about the 32,000th most visited website worldwide. But the number of players continues to decrease, Android & phones started to change the landscape already. Chess.com released its app and added probably its best feature: a quick Stockfish analysis with evaluation & explanation for each move (which is excellent for blitz games but quite a non-sense for a correspondence chess website).
4. The number of players suddenly declines very quickly, I react by creating FICGS apps for Android, a dozen apps... On some apps, you can play against the machine, virtual opponents, chess 960, blindfold & so on. But the way to maintain it is not easy at all for many reasons, but the main one is that Google (Playstore) constantly change technical things & rules. After a few years, I even have to completely remake it, losing what was acquired. And some apps still fail to re-appear at Playstore, that's why I just made the APK files available to direct download. But these applications confirm something clear: blitz is more fun and attracts much more players. Changing rating ranges for correspondence chess tournaments or championships formats won't be a solution for this.
5. FICGS is now 20 years old! Internet completely changed over the years but it survived longer than Messenger, Skype & many other great services. If you look at many websites, new versions of their modern interfaces are often worst (bugs or options) than previous ones. FICGS was never perfect, maybe even clear, but at least it remained coherent. Now Google (just like all major services) is mainly governed by AI, sponsors left - that does not change anything, FICGS will continue to run. I created other websites, but none so far successfully helped in a way or another to solve the problem we encounter here: how to increase the number of correspondence chess, Go or poker players again? If FICGS becomes a pure correspondence chess site again with a brand new interface, I'm quite sure that wouldn't change anything or almost. I might be wrong of course, but according to me, this is a deep problem, connected to society evolutions, computers, phones, our attention, time, even health & so on... In my personal case, I wish to play correspondence chess again, but still cannot find the time to do it. Finally I have no idea what internet will look like within 5 years, but FICGS will be there. Maybe an AI will find a solution soon ^^ Meanwhile, I received many ideas to improve FICGS and I have to thank you very much for this. Few ideas were released for reasons I explained here (but new ones are always wecome), I hope you'll better understand it by reading this.
Have good games & take care!
Scott Ligon (2026-03-01 19:25:51)
Next thematic tournament
It does look like black is skating on thin ice in this line. These are exactly the kind of lines that might still be interesting to play in the Stockfish era, where solid openings are trivially drawn. One side or the other needs to have misplayed the opening enough to be almost losing, or possibly losing already, but in a position where this isn't clear.
Stanislas Gounant (2026-02-27 22:12:08)
Next thematic tournament
I amused myself by looking at the most frequently played lines at the top level, stopping at the first six moves. Then I used Stockfish to evaluate the resulting positions. I was surprised to find that Stockfish rated a Benoni line +0.91 at 40 half-moves deep. I suppose there must be a lot of theory surrounding this line, but with a rating of +0.91, there's certainly enough to work with. Here's the line in question (sorry for the Google translation):
1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 c5 3.d5 e6 4.Nc3 exd5 5.cxd5 d6 6.e4 g6
Thibault de Vassal (2026-02-27 15:19:43)
Post-tickets FICGS
Now 3 players in the rapid M, 2 in the rapid A... but the main point remains, it takes too long to fill waiting lists.
The short answer to "What have you done?" may be: FICGS did not evolve these last 10 years. But I'm not sure it's so simple. I'll write the long answer soon.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-22 07:45:14)
Is rating just a number on this site?
There are two types of tickets.
The first kind is when you win a lower class/rapid event and that qualifies you to enter the next higher rated event, but you have to wait until five players above the rating cut off have already entered.
This system was introduced to get tournaments started as each tournament would sit for months waiting for seven players who had ratings above the rating cut off to enter.
And then Thibault has extended the system to pay to enter, where you need to be 50 points lower than the rating cut off.
As has been said previously, one of the biggest issues is not either of these concepts, it is the difference in the rating bands for entering a tournament.
When a tournament is 2200 to 2600, no one who is rated 2500 is going to enter that event when 4 players who are rated between 2200 and 2300 have already entered.
I have already proposed a solution to this, but once again Thibault will not embrace change and we are stuck with what we have.
And I am going to say this directly. Those who are playing on here are growing increasing frustrated and how it is being run.
From TER, to rating bands, to tickets and many other issues, nothing changes.
And I think quite a few of us are reaching the point of walking away. I certainly am.
There is no point continuing on when the site owner will not change anything anymore. The only option left is to leave.
Ulises Pineda (2026-02-21 04:35:44)
Is rating just a number on this site?
It became just a number after tickets were introduced.
I could easily have been 2400 if tickets were promoted from the beginning and I bought them whenever it was possible, even though I would have been playing at the same level.
For rating to matter you can't just let players play in the next tier, there's the strong 2400 players that got there beating others on their tiers or lower, but now there'll be 2400 players that bought tickets and drew their games of that tier, making it be just a number.
Garvin Gray (2026-02-13 02:36:18)
Is rating just a number on this site?
I am taking this comment from the chat to this forum for further discussion.
In my opinion, this statement is false. On this site, your rating is not just a number. Your rating dictates which tournaments you can enter and most importantly, when you enter a class/rapid group tournament, or a wch tournament, your rating dictates your chances of success.
Example: If you have made it through to the round robin final and you are the seventh seed, this means generally there is about 50 rating points between the top seed and the bottom seed.
But with TER being used as the first tie break, if you are the bottom seed, you have to win the group outright. Any ties and you are done. And so forth if you are the sixth player by rating for anyone higher.
The top seed in that group, who could only be the top seed by 1 or 2 points, in effect gets draw odds against the field. That is such an enormous advantage that it can not be understated how much of an advantage it is.
I think it is now so clear that your rating on this site is not just a number. It dictates everything about your playing experience. From which tournaments you can enter, to how you progress in the wch cycle and if you can get tickets to higher level tournaments.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-02-07 00:21:18)
following the knock out stage of wch 28
Yes, the candidates final #28 will start as soon as this one finishes.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-31 22:56:08)
Poker ELO
Hello Yeturu & very sorry, for some reason I completely overlooked that post.
Of course I agree that ELO is not ideal for poker, I quickly changed some parameters to make it a bit more stable.
There are many many ways to do it different & probably better, particularly when not only H2H is played, but the idea was to do it looking like chess, so this is just a choice among many others.
Reaching elo 2000 with constant all-in does not shock me much as players under this rating probably do not play as many as hands (it takes time & many games to gain points)...
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-29 02:00:04)
Too many groups for tourneys
Changing rating bands is not a big effort (at all), but it would ruin coherence of each category... and we should change it again if the number of players evolve again. That's quite like suddenly playing best of 2 and only 1 serve at Roland Garros. Why tennis does not evolve (while it is seriously concurrenced by Padel) more? Quite the same reasons IMHO.
Well, FICGS is not Roland Garros... of course, but I already made too many mistakes that ruined coherence there and there, with not so good consequences.
Garvin Gray (2026-01-28 17:36:07)
Too many groups for tourneys
Time to wind the clock back quite a few years. What I suggested as a solution to this issue was that the rating bands for the class tourneys and the rapid tourneys should have rating bands of 200 point differences, but they be at a different cut off.
What this meant in practice is.
Class tournaments
2600 +
2599 - 2400
2399 - 2200
2199 - 2000
1999 - 1800
and so forth
And then the rapids would be
2500 +
2499 - 2300
2299 - 2100
2099 - 1900
1899 - 1700
and so forth I think after quite a bit of discussion, Thibault decided that this idea was either too much effort, or that the rating bands I was proposing was too restrictive. I think the evidence over the years has proven my conclusions more correct. Players do not enter the rating band tournaments when there is a 400 point difference. These events only get filled by players who have a ticket from a lower tourney win, or they buy their way in by being less than 50 points in. But, to beat the drum again. If Thibault is not on board, it does not happen. And at this point in time, I am more concerned with fixing the 5 player round robin WCH group issue.
Garvin Gray (2026-01-28 01:44:51)
WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_01__000029
It is even in the rules: there will be double round-robin tournaments for 5 players groups only.
Therefore, these 5 player groups need to be deleted and re-loaded and double round robin groups
Garvin Gray (2026-01-28 01:42:00)
WCH_STAGE_2_GROUP_01__000029
Why is this only single round robin?
We have discussed this previously. Five players. Double round robin.
I am asking for this tournament to be deleted and re-loaded as a double round robin.
Thibault de Vassal (2026-01-23 12:08:41)
Ghost player
Most probably he connected on Jan 18 and never disconnected since that time.
A. T. S. Broekhuizen (2026-01-21 10:17:50)
Ghost player
I have an opponent in a wch cycle who last connected to the server on Januari 18. But somehow his profile shows that his last move was on Januari 20. ,yesterday. I noticed this once before already against another player. Unless this is a bug, it's really shady.
George Jempty (2025-12-22 19:38:28)
Next thematic tournament
Yeah, just waiting for Thib to update the starting position, it's still open to entries for the CK/advance/...c5 variation. I hope nobody enters that one, otherwise who knows how long we'll have to wait
George Jempty (2025-12-10 21:02:50)
Too many groups for tourneys
Well then there is the implementing of those decisions as well, and I have 25 years experience as a web developer, and have offered my assistance lately, but nothing has come of it. I think the decisions themselves are however Thib's purview
Garvin Gray (2025-12-10 02:03:16)
An indication for draw offers
Sorry, deja vu again.
ICCF already handles this topic.
A player can only offer one draw every ten moves in a game, unless their opponent offers a draw in return.
I have suggested this to Thibault previously and whilst he was receptive, it was not implemented.
This solution would stop repetitive draw offers, either intentional or accidental (and accidental can happen with no equal sign applied to a draw offer in the notation) and also everyone would know when they last offered a draw in each game.
Garvin Gray (2025-12-10 01:59:32)
Too many groups for tourneys
I am not being harsh on Thibault at all. I am just stating a fact in regards to these discussions. For there to be progress, the site owner has to be willing to embrace the suggestions.
Without this, the conversations are just that.
I guess I am just burnt out and scarred. Having been through too many of these same discussions over the many, many years and they all end up in the same place. The rubbish bin.
And it does not have to be this way. It is true that Thibault does run this site on his own, but he could appoint three moderators or other such people to handle these decisions.
George Jempty (2025-12-10 00:40:04)
Too many groups for tourneys
So from the sidebar there are only 30 active players rated 2306 and above. Something clearly needs to be done. My idea of one group 2300+ might work as might additonally allow 2250+ players in under certain conditions. Maybe there could also be a 2400+ for those elite players who would prefer to play other such elite plaers.
Garvin Gray (2025-12-09 18:40:17)
Too many groups for tourneys
The issue is not so much with rating bands, it is difference in ratings of the groups.
400 points in the groups is ridiculous. A 2500 player is not going to be the first to join a group when they know that a 2150 can also join that same group.
But once again, just like a lot of issues on this site, I have brought these issues to Thibault attention, some changes have been made, but the main issue of what you see now still remains.
Just like the rest of the issues that have been discussed, if Thibault does not agree, discussing the issue is a waste of your time.
George Jempty (2025-12-04 21:54:41)
Too many groups for tourneys
Yeah I'm a little biased too. I'm probably headed to 2250+ in the next couple of cycles and therefore too might be able to get a ticket into the 2300 tourneys, though I highly doubt I'll ever reach 2300.
Scott Ligon (2025-12-04 18:31:57)
Too many groups for tourneys
I agree, though I may be biased. My rating has never been high enough to get into the 2400+ tourneys, and currently isn't high enough for 2350+, unless maybe I could get a ticket once it fills up most of the way, or however that works. Seems like there just aren't enough active players at those rating levels. Interestingly, I noticed that two of the four players currently signed up for the 2400+ Rapid have never played a game on this site.
I wonder if there were more players a long time ago when the current tournament structures were set up, so those tourneys were getting filled regularly. But over the past few years the fields have thinned.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-28 04:17:09)
New Tie Break System
Sorry, but I don't really want to participate in these discussions.
I have been through them before, even to the point of full on arguments with Thibault.
And also as National Delegate for Australia at ICCF, I have been involved in so many proposals on this topic that I have had enough of these discussions.
ICCF already has a set system and this is because it has been hashed out by all the ND's and the ICCF executive board over a number of years.
I see no point in trying to re-invent the wheel.
Talk of using different points for black wins or other criteria have also been debated in ICCF proposals and been defeated as they are unfair in the group as the player could get the win through an ETL.
And player mass resigning games without punishment is a topic that has recently been complained about on here again.
See why I don't want to discuss this topic. I have been going over these topics for almost two decades.
I am done
George Jempty (2025-11-26 13:19:19)
New Tie Break System
I still like my idea of using it based on performance rating FIRST, I don't see how it gives the lowest entrant an advantage if the tournament ends in a tie between all players.
But lets say two players tie, and one of them has a higher performance rating because they beat a stronger player than the other, that ALSO does not give an advantage to the lower rated player that I can see. Rather, that player must have beaten a higher rated player than the other in order to have a higher performance rating. So if the higher rated player beat a higher rated player rated player than the lower rated player did, the higher rated player would advance.
Perhaps Garvin can weigh in a little more specifically about how being lower rated gives an advantage. But, under his idea, my proposed order would be, 1) Number of wins, 2) performance rating, 3) Sonnen-berger, etc.
George Jempty (2025-11-26 12:55:16)
New Tie Break System
Thib, couldn't some sort of change be made and be instituted (and communicated) by Jan 1 2026? Because yes, based merely on highest TER, in my opinion does NOT constitute a fair system.
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-25 23:27:25)
Poker ELO
Proposal: re-examine Poker ELO
Why? ELO is a heuristic designed for full information games involving no element of chance. In that space, it has stood the test of time. For games incorporating an element of chance, such as Poker, it is not ideal. As a data point, my evidence from FICGS is that a Poker player who goes all-in on every hand converges to an ELO of slightly over 2000. My last observation is from a long time ago, and one of these players (the much better one) has abandoned this strategy since then. There are many earnest players who deserve to out-rank such a simplistic strategy but don't.
Action: This subject has been studied, and the emerging recommendation is a simple change to the heuristic for games which incorporate elements of chance.
Research: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1ZXdehn029SaV6a5mxsn7WAMsxYNZPGHzZHKiBbeaxrw/edit?usp=sharing
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-19 08:46:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Mr. Ulises Pineda,
Of course, you're valuable. The time you spend, your actions, and your interaction enrich both me, the players, and the site. Thank you for your efforts.
It's clear that each site has its own infrastructure and process. Yes, we play on a different site, and there can be conditional moves there. But FICGS's games also go to the Corr Database, and they're respected. We can say it's a proven platform.
You're right about the ticket issue being annoying. In that case, the paying player has a slightly greater advantage.
I agree with you in the long run, but the person who keeps the site "usable" also puts in the effort. Perhaps a different update on this rule will be forthcoming.
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-19 06:45:16)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I'm contributing with my moves and participation in the platform, I also don't ask for money to the site owner to see my moves or to start new games, because it goes both ways, without players like me participating, the site would die, if someone gets a very sour taste in their mouth that they stop participating, it's the beginning of the end.
The players are needed, is the site needed? We're already playing a game in another place, Ozen, I see you making conditional moves over there that you can't send here, so what's the advantage of playing over here instead of playing over there?
At the end of the day, I come here because of the players I can face here, that only play at FICGS, so it's the only way. If they happen to leave because of some circumstances, then the site becomes pointless.
FICGS is its players.
FICGS needs the players more than the players need FICGS.
Gratitude goes both ways, I don't feel appreciated because the site's owner hasn't even replied here, because I'm just another useless player and if I left someone else would come to replace me, perhaps someone that buys tickets.
If I'm not valuable, if my games and move contributions are meaningless perhaps I should stop creating new games around here, there's other places that are completely free, have more features, and don't let players pay to get in higher rated tiers.
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-18 13:32:10)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Mr. Ulises Pineda,
I read what you wrote. I understand and agree with you. However, you're missing a crucial point.
The FICGS website doesn't charge any fees for entering tournaments like the ICCF or other sites. And we know that the world is currently dominated by a capitalist system. Mr. Thibault's efforts shouldn't be discounted here. As correspondence chess players, our numbers are small, anyway.
There's a lot of effort involved, and you can contribute through e-points or donations.
At the end of the day, think about it this way: FICGS offers a free marathon service, and we're debating whether it should be 20 or 40 km...
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-18 10:33:59)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I demand a button that buys a ticket automatically when a player is elegible for playing a higher rated tournament and the Epoints to pay it are available, because right now, I have no idea how to do such a feat, in that case, Jempty outsmarted us all, unironically.
Not that my demands have any weight, I think people's lives have gotten better since they ignored me, and perhaps it'd be better for everyone if these rules remained hidden and nobody ever used them again (except Jempty would continue to play a tier up when able), but it's worth a try.
I don't have a bad taste but this has caused me physical pain in the lower back part of my head, is it stressful?
It's nothing personal against George, it's just that climbing the rating ladder is one of the most difficult tasks one can do in life, so when one sees a 2400 player, one respects them, because of all the time and effort they had to put to get there, which, for all players below that tier is immeasurable, if we could measure it we could have that rating too.
But someone getting there by buying tickets that allowed them to face higher rated opposition and take shortcuts to avoid dealing with lower rated players does cheapen the meaning of the number.
I guess it's all about the money, pay to win iff someone buys the Epoints for this reason, and holds a higher rating to skip a tier (note I said iff, not if, not accusing anybody of doing that.)
It's like buying a car instead of running the marathon, and the rating doesn't actually reflect chess skill anymore.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-18 02:55:42)
Clarification of Rating Groups
It is really annoying when the site owner does not bother to clarify this issue and instead leaves it to the players to have to dig through the rules themselves to sort out this issue.
Tickets for a higher class tournament :
However, when you win a rated tournament (only after that you receive an email specifying it or when the tournaments list shows your name as winner or co-winner of the tournament) or if your rating is at most 50 points below the low rating limit of the next class tournament's waiting list, it is now possible to buy a ticket for the next class tournament's waiting list (for example if you win a chess class A tournament, you may ask for a ticket for the next class M tournament) for 10 Epoints if the following conditions are filled : 1) No more than 2 players obtained the best score in the tournament. There's no winner otherwise. 2) The player's TER must not be more than 200 points below the low rating limit of the tournament's waiting list. 3) At most 2 players may buy a ticket to enter the same waiting list. 4) Five players at least must have entered the tournament's waiting list already so that you can buy a ticket for this tournament. 5) The possibility to buy a ticket is valid after the official end of the tournament [when the tournaments list shows winners, not leaders of the tournament]. 6) As the price for any ticket is 10 Epoints, the player's account must be credited of at least 10 Epoints.
George Jempty (2025-11-17 23:41:26)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Actually I was not happy having to defend so precisely, and probably could not have done so OTB, so I'm giving up on it, and instead will take up a variation of the Two Knights
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-12 20:26:59)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Yeah, I couldn't do anything against your Paris Defence, frankly, I've fared better against 3...Bc5 or 3...Nf6, still can't believe 3...d6 and 5...Nb8 held that well, but it was interesting while remaining solid.
George Jempty (2025-11-12 16:06:48)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
I guess for me it's kind of personal because I played the Budapest on and off for decades, even beat an IM with it in a simul, but eventually became convinced it was borderline unsound. I think you can get interesting games without playing *too* unsoundly, for instance as Black I play the Siesta
Thibault de Vassal (2025-11-12 15:16:04)
Increasing the Number of Games in Progre
Hello Bahadir and Ulises,
That's an old debate... unfortunately I had to add this rule to protect other players from these too numerous unfinished games. Penalizing was not really useful as most of forfeiting players do not come back again. It works fine since that time, even if it can be a bit frustrating. In my opinion this is a good & efficient rule.
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-11 23:02:26)
Increasing the Number of Games in Progre
What about penalizing players that forfeit too many matches by disallowing them to start new games for a month, or something like that? Other kind of penalties would be problematic because they'd depend on how many games are already running, but a time out for forfeiting games seems reasonable.
Bahadir Ozen (2025-11-11 10:46:11)
Increasing the Number of Games in Progre
Hello,
First of all, I'd like to thank Mr. Thibault for his efforts. We can play regularly for free. FICGS and LSS are my favorite correspondence chess sites.
Is there a possibility of increasing the maximum number of matches from 50 in the future? For example, 200 matches at a time.
Players who forfeit too many matches will be penalized; perhaps such a system could be implemented. I'm just curious; is it possible?
Regards
Bahadir
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:23:03)
Clarification of Rating Groups
Yeah, I'd just want the same chances since I'm at 2274 and would like to join tournaments a tier up, but I don't see any "pay 10 E-points to join". I could claim that I've drawn +2300 players many times and "worthy of" being with the higher ups, or whatever it takes, but the purpose would be defeated if I get to face the same people I'm facing now because the +2300 tournaments would be full of 2250+ rated players.
Ulises Pineda (2025-11-10 17:06:10)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Because the optimal defenses by black are so boring! And they don't offer any counter-play, specially against lower-rated opponents that could easily draw as white with those. In uncommon variations they have to think, and that's the only chance they slip.
There's also the aspect of overconfidence, chess engines have gotten so strong one thinks they can defend anything. That was a mistake I made last time I played a Benoni and lost, I thought I played the strongest defense, who knows if my opponent could also have defeated someone else in the same line, but it was a problem of evaluation, not depth, the engine was showing 1.0 scores for positions that were lost, and they were so complicated I couldn't keep up. Near the end my opponent wasn't even playing the moves I predicted and cut the game like a knife through butter.
But I'll always rather lose a game like that than playing the same boring defense that draws against anything but it's a snore fest, apparently I could just play moves from 300 million nodes blindly and draw anyway.
So I continue to play dubious lines and appreciate opponents that deviate from the norm to spice things up, I could easily be over 2300 at the cost of boring games, but I'll be getting there soon anyway and finally find out how people on that tier play against me, since I've never been able to join tournaments of that caliber.
Garvin Gray (2025-11-10 05:48:20)
Clarification of Rating Groups
George:
As I stated in my original post:
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
Your reply would fit if the player had won the lower division and was then trying to enter the higher division.
This is the rule I was quoting.
Your justifications about where your rating sits, or where your rating maybe in the future does not matter. Many players can show this pattern.
I certain have and have been stuck just below a rating cut off and when I have attempted to enter a higher division when there are two spots left open, I have been told no as I not won a lower division.
Therefore, this is why I am seeking a clarification from Thibault.
And it is only Thibault that I want a public answer from.
Either the rule has changed and it should be told to everyone, or an exception has been made for you, which is then clearly wrong as that is favouritism.
I have been told no in the past.
So, which is it Thibault?
Garvin Gray (2025-11-04 16:15:02)
Clarification of Rating Groups
I have just seen the chat bar exchange where George Jempty has said:
You can play up if you are within 50 points, and now I am in and my account has been debited e points.
Where has this rule come from?
On countless occasions I have enquired about being able to enter a higher division than my rating when I have just been under the rating cutoff, and been told no.
The policy as I have known it has been that a player must win a lower division, and then can only enter the higher division when the field has gotten to the last two entries.
Has this policy changed?
If it has, then it would have helped to have it publicised, but also I would spoken against the changed as it makes a mockery of any rating divisions.
If this is the case, might as well call 2200 - 2600, 2150 - 2600
George Jempty (2025-11-04 14:06:45)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Yes, Dutch is OK, but 2.Nh3!? is a challenge, and I've won at least one game on this server with that. But the Benoni and Budapest are significantly worse IMO. Like I say a 2300-player tried the Budapest against me and I have something like a +2.5 advantage (according to SF17) at move 23. Yes, he was not at all careful and definitely made a couple of very bad decisions. Interestingly, I see the average ELO he face is 1900, so I think his rating is really inflated and he doesn't do so well against stronger players, whereas I'm currently at 2175, and the average ELO I face is 2100. I try to "play up" for the strongest competition, rather than "play down" to pump up my rating.
George Jempty (2025-11-04 13:58:15)
Banning players who forfeit too much
ok I will try to find the particular instance that prompted this post (it's been a few weeks so I've forgotten) and let Thib know so he can perhaps take some kind of action
Herbert Kruse (2025-11-04 11:46:24)
Banning players who forfeit too much
These Players are Not playing fair and Change results of tournaments.
I will Stop playing round Robin, If nothing can be done
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-11-03 22:57:20)
go game 146698
Near the bottom of your screen for this game, you will see the link "call referee"
Ilmars Cirulis (2025-10-31 13:37:01)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
Dutch is okay (very playable, imo) and interesting. :)
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 (2025-10-31 08:00:36)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
I played the Budapest OTB for *decades*. As you say, playable "just barely". Same goes for the Benoni and the Dutch. Why handicap yourself with such disadvantageous openings in correspondence play?
Scott Ligon (2025-10-31 00:49:54)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
I don't know if you're talking about the Budapest in the context of correspondence games, but it's playable for black, just barely. I don't think it loses by force. I have played it several times on this site.
George Jempty (2025-10-30 10:27:20)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
oops meant to post this as a blog post LOL
George Jempty (2025-10-30 10:25:31)
a 2300-player tried the Budapest
and now has a -1.5 disadvantage
George Jempty (2025-10-30 08:42:46)
Banning players who forfeit too much
I'd have to go through my games again. In any case, maybe they should banished to un-rated tournaments, and only if they finish that, they can play in rated tournaments again
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-27 18:42:15)
Banning players who forfeit too much
Hello George... I didn't see that, please send me details by email (I have many emails late, sorry).
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-27 18:41:02)
Russian flag replaced
I don't intend to remake the whole debate here or anywhere else... I have other things to do. But in brief, IMO:
1. The situation was complex before oct.8
2. Hamas (terrorist org) started it.
3. More than 75% (!) of Gaza buildings were destroyed.
4. How many people killed, how many terrorists?
5. What are the limits of acceptability?
It seems possible to commit war crimes and/or a genocide after being attacked, right?
There can be absolutely no link between estimating that Israel commits a genocide and proving antisemitism, right?
There are other wars in the world, that's right (of different natures).
I'm not in a hurry to take any action... it will take time yet.
Garvin Gray (2025-10-27 14:15:04)
Russian flag replaced
Before you take any action, you should actually check your facts regarding Israel. I really hate discussing this topic, but since now the site owner is considering taking similar against those who display the Israel flag as those who were from Russia and Belarus, it is extremely important to remember how we got here in both situations.
With Russia and Belarus, it was because they started a war of aggression on another correspondence chess federation.
And all sporting bodies took swift action against them in suspending their Federations and preventing their teams from competing, and players from competing and their own flag.
With the situation between Hamas/Hezbollah and Isreal, it was Hamas that was the aggressor. There was no war on July 6, 2023 and Gaza was in a state of peace. But then Hamas attacked Isreal, chopping the heads of babies and taking hostages and raping Israeli women hostages.
What did you expect the Isreali Government to do in response? Sit back and let a terrorist organisation keep the hostages and are you saying that Isreal does not have a right to defend itself?
It is quite disgusting that there are wars all over the world at the moment, about 20 at the moment, but it is only when Jews defend themselves that people feel the need to virtue signal their sense of outrage.
The correct word for them is anti-semites. We used to say 'Never again' after the Holocaust, but it now seem perfectly acceptable to support a terrorist organisation when it attacks Israel and Israel responds by trying to eliminate the threat once and for all.
And it should also be noted as we saw over a week ago. A sixth peace offer was made and Hamas responded like all the others. With more aggression.
Decide to take action against Israel on this site and you prove your antisemitism.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-24 12:22:24)
DNS failure last week
Ahaha :) Thank you very much Yeturu... I could have sent an email to everyone sooner, but I always hoped to solve the problem quickly... I was wrong, obviously.
About the DNS config (ns.ficgs.com, dns.ficgs.com), I just can't remember what I exactly did maybe 15 years ago, but the fact is that it suddenly stopped to work, and I don't know why. So I had to change it.
Yeturu Aahlad (2025-10-22 18:54:42)
DNS failure last week
Thibault, I was fearing the worst. Although I'm an atheist, I was praying for your safety. To help me avoid future trips to the temple, may I ask for a favor? Please keep a mailing list you can use even if your service provider is unavailable. Now, if I see 3 days of outage and receive no email notification,I will return to the temple.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-10-21 17:27:39)
DNS failure last week
Hello everyone...
Finally FICGS is back!
Noone should have lost any game on time, I added about 7 days to all players expected to move, and 2 days to their opponents (time for new DNS to spread all over the internet)
I still have no idea why previous DNS ns.ficgs.com didn't work anymore, but well, I had to change it after having solved another (bigger) issue with the server provider.
Sorry all for the inconvenience...
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:28:05)
Banning players who forfeit too much
Can't we do something about this problem? I now stand to lose rating points by drawing against a serial forfeiter who now continues to play against me after their rating went down over 125 points, and mine has gone up as much. I entered the tournament figuring however that I would gain rating points, except my rating in the meantime has gone up around 125 points. THIS IS UNFAIR. I propose that anybody that forfeits more than one game in a month, that they get banned.
George Jempty (2025-10-07 17:20:01)
Cheating / Forfeiting
You know what angers me about these players, is that I entered a tournament when one of them was around 2150 and me around 2000, and I stood to GAIN rating points by drawing. Well they've forfeited a bunch of games and there rating is down to close to 2000, whereas my latest rating was 2125, and my future rating is over 2150 at the moment. So now if I only draw against them I stand to LOSE rating points, unless they forfeit against me, which may or may not happen,
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
George Jempty (2025-10-07 08:21:29)
Next thematic tournament
What about 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e6 3.Nc3 Nb5 4.Bf4!? it would be a way to test out a perfectly sound alternative that is almost never played
George Jempty (2025-10-05 14:58:16)
Cheating / Forfeiting
@Unlise Pineda, I do not think those situations are random. Because last one month, at least once, I had 3 or 4 games by "different" players, that have been doing so (letting their time run down to around one day or less) when I got all of their moves within 5 or 10 minutes of one another, very strange.
Sergei Orlov (2025-08-07 17:21:03)
Изменение учетной записи
I sent an email on 08/25/2018 to info@ficgs.com There is no reaction yet. Here is the text of the letter - Good afternoon! Please change the account name - Sergey Orlov to Vladimir Orlov. Sincerely, Vladimir
P.S. I registered my son, but he has never played on the site.
Ulises Pineda (2025-08-05 01:14:13)
Cheating / Forfeiting
I've seen many games recently where the games are lost on time in equal positions, by players that let their clock run until they have 0 days and then play from the increment. But they seem random, so not sure.
Scott Ligon (2025-07-08 12:59:43)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
You might still find a winning line as the game progresses. But if you think you have better things to do with your time than trying to refute these strategies, I won't disagree. And you're right, if you refute 17.1 @ 50 million nodes, I'll just double the node count next time.
The whole point of the exercise from my point of view is to find an unbeatable deterministic strategy, keeping node count to a minimum. With Stockfish 17.1, 20 million nodes didn't get the job done and 50 million might, I just don't know yet. Either way, I'm confident that unbeatable configurations exist, and I don't think they're far off if I haven't found one already.
George Jempty (2025-06-26 23:39:19)
I did not win a game since 3 years
Yeah the only reason I'm winning in one of my games right now is because of poor play by my opponent. But 12 years ago or so I had an unbeaten streak for 2 years or so, with plenty of wins along the way (even one with Black with the Siesta variation against the Ruy) from an initial rating of 1900 or so, up to 2200+. The only reason I'm playing again now is too get some fodder for a chess opening book (about a different variation for Black against the Ruy) I've begun to write.
Ulises Pineda (2025-06-22 13:45:25)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Harsh words? I took that as a compliment. Getting some credit was a life changer.
I forgot to explain the joke I made when I played 62.Ba3 and said "That must be a new record"; in all our previous games I played into a position where the script was about to play a losing move you had to avoid, in this game I did it twice.
Stanislas Gounant (2025-05-17 22:45:27)
Changing in Poker game.
I play a poker Game and now when I watch the game, I only see the countdown of the clock I can't the the name of the player and is rating. Is it a good update or a bug
Scott Ligon (2025-04-24 16:36:24)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Yeah you found a line that beat the 10 million node strategy which I hadn't analyzed. Congratulations! I'm not interested in arguing with you about the next strategy I choose to play. You might find a winning line against Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes, or maybe I'll find it first, or somebody else will. Or maybe nobody will find it because it doesn't exist (this is the possibility you completely discount). I've got nothing more to say to you and I can't imagine how many stupid fights you probably pick with people for no good reason in your day to day life, but your attitude is hilarious.
Ulises Pineda (2025-04-24 16:20:25)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I'm going to find a winning line against it, and then I'm going to find a win against your next step, and then I'm going to find another one against the next one, so skipping steps are a way to save time.
Remember I never made a move in our games until I had found the line, I only played it out, I'm still surprised you haven't dedicated the time to find it as if you were your own opponent, unless I'm the only person in the world that knows how to find such lines.
By using Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million of nodes you would get it retired by me already, I don't understand why you'd want me to retire 10 million or 15 million first, because this has never been about the number of nodes, this is about telling me how you're going to pick your moves so I can find a line that would make your method make a game losing blunder.
Remember you sent me a message thinking 10 million nodes would play just fine right before I made a move that would make it blunder, what I don't know is why didn't you see the move before I played it, or from the distance, and that it surprised you, have people really forgotten how to analyze games? If you build a big tree of moves and replies to them, it's going to contain a line that beats Stockfish at fixed nodes, it'll take me about 24 hours to find the one against Stockfish 17.1 @ 10 million nodes, and about 48 hours to find one against Stockfish 17.1 @ 20 million nodes, the difference is we'll save the amount of games we have to face each other.
Stanislas Gounant (2025-03-30 03:05:34)
The future of cheating over the board?
I seem to remember reading that at the 2016 World Championship in New York, the organizers isolated the players from the spectators with an anti-radiation curtain. I don't know if it works for sound frequencies. In any case, I suppose that devices can detect the abnormal presence of ultrasound as well as that of audible sounds.
Ulises Pineda (2025-03-29 17:10:11)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
What I don't get is, what are your other opponents doing? I mean, it took some time, but at all points I had a line that I knew would beat the 10 million strategy if they were followed through, this is an opportunity to always get ponder hits because one always knows what move will be played in all positions.
Are those people aware that the fixed node strategy will lead to a draw, and they play it anyway? That's too weird to me.
I'm confident in a future game against the 15 million node strategy I would find another such line and play it out, just to retire it, but I wouldn't make any moves in the game until I had it, I don't know what those players that know all moves played would lead to a draw are doing.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-29 15:42:08)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
I played one last game using the 10 million node strategy against Pineda. The game ended in a draw, but I had to deviate from the 10 million node strategy at the end to avoid losing. I thought the finish was interesting.
https://ficgs.com/user_page.php?page=viewer&game=147951
The key position came after black's 56th move, and up to that point with black I am just following the 10 million node strategy. These are the moves:
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Bxh4 Be5
I ran a width 6 / depth 55 search with Stockfish 17 on the position after black's 56th move, and the top 5 moves for white along with their eval scores were:
57. Re1
+ (0.39)
57. Qf5
+ (0.37)
57. Qg4+
+ (0.32)
57. Bg3
+ (0.25)
57. Qh3
+ (0.01)
Based on that, you might think white should only consider the top 4 moves. But if we look at this from the point of view of exploiting the 10 million node strategy, here are the evaluations of those top 5 moves after the 10 million node strategy response:
57. Re1 Bd4+
+ (0.52)
57. Qf5 Bd4+
+ (0.54)
57. Qg4+ Qg6
+ (0.42)
57. Bg3 Bc3
+ (0.27)
57. Qh3 Rg6
+ (1.65)
So presumably using that logic, my opponent played Qh3 where the 10 million node strategy would require me to respond with Rg6, which loses the game. Qh3 doesn't stand out at all unless you're trying to exploit the 10 million node strategy. The actual game ended with 57. Qh3 Bd4+ and we agreed to a draw.
Thibault de Vassal (2025-03-27 23:35:56)
The future of cheating over the board?
"Scientists create sound that can curve through a crowd and reach just one person
Engineers at Penn State have introduced a breakthrough audio system called “audible enclaves” that can send sound directly to one person without anyone else hearing it—and all without the use of headphones.
The system relies on ultrasound waves, which travel silently through the air. When two beams with slightly different frequencies cross paths, they generate an audible tone right at that meeting point, allowing only the intended recipient to hear the message.
Even more impressive, the sound can curve around obstacles to reach its target. In initial tests, it worked effectively up to three feet away. This innovation opens the door for private audio experiences in shared spaces and better control of sound in noisy environments, though it's not yet ready for commercial use."
(Source: Facebook)
Ulises Pineda (2025-03-20 00:31:48)
Fried Liver analysis on rybkaforum.net?
Hello, I was a Rybka Forum moderator for several years, as Uly/Vytron, and the person with most games at their Correspondence Chess section.
I've been amassing a great deal of chess analysis since 2007 in Bookup files (later named Chess Openings Wizard files) so I have all the analysis that was posted on the forum.
It was able to hold up for years, until Sotckfish NNUE appeared, that was the software that obsoleted the analysis, as so many moves were misevaluated (it said white had a big advantage when it was the opposite, and vice versa) and Stockfish NNUE was providing, at low depth, moves that were refuting entire variations and trees.
It was at that point I realized I had more than a decade of useless analysis, and it's not just the Fried Liver, it happened in all of chess. In all the positions I analyzed for my games.
Which means any recovered analysis from rybkaforum would be garbage, since I do have it but had to start new trees from scratch because nothing worthwhile could be recovered from the old ones, and it was more trouble than it was worth, Stockfish NNUE would produce variations that from scratch would be more useful to generate than wasting time refuting the old lines.
At the end of the day, getting unpublished was a fortune because people will not waste time looking at those obsolete lines.
Scott Ligon (2025-03-04 16:30:48)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
So the current state of the experiment is that white can defeat the 10 million node strategy, and so far I haven't seen a way for white to win against the 15 million node strategy. Somebody might find a win for white, it just hasn't happened yet.
I already mentioned that if this strategy leads me to a losing position and I notice this in time, I will intervene and stop playing the strategy to try to avoid losing. I will add another exception. If I reach a position that is winning or close to it, I will intervene to try to play for the win, because of course these fixed node strategies don't always find the best move. This has already happened in at least one of my games but I wanted to make my policy clear. I'm using a deterministic strategy as a sort of autopilot mode, but if I get close to winning or losing, I'll turn off the autopilot. This is rare though. Most of the time neither side gets a decisive advantage and I'll stay on autopilot and the game will end in a draw.
Stanislas Gounant (2025-02-23 09:55:28)
King's Gambit Accepted, Breyer Gambit
https://www.mjae.com/breyer.html
Ilmars Cirulis (2025-02-22 21:23:01)
KGA, Breyer Gambit
King's Gambit Accepted, Breyer Gambit
It goes 1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Qf3
3.Nf3 and 3.Bc4 is okay, but what do you think about this third move (3.Qf3)?
Cheers!
Scott Ligon (2025-02-17 04:20:15)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Here are three lines I analyzed with Stockfish. I think black should be able to hold the draw in all of them, but the 10 million node strategy makes some mistakes. Notably 54. Qf3 Bd6 is bad and black should have played Bg3 there, but apparently not bad enough to lose unless further mistakes are made. Anyway these are the lines I looked at.
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Bxh4 Be5
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Bg5 Kg7 56. Qf5 Re5 57. Qf4 Re6
1. e4 c5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 g6 4. O-O Bg7 5. Bxc6 dxc6 6. d3 a5 7. h3 b6 8. a3 Nf6 9. Qe2 O-O 10. Nc3 Ne8 11. e5 Nc7 12. Qe4 Ne6 13. Re1 Qd7 14. Qh4 f6 15. Be3 h6 16. Qg3 g5 17. h4 Qd8 18. Bd2 b5 19. b3 Kh7 20. Rac1 Kg8 21. Rcd1 Ra7 22. Rb1 Ra8 23. Rbc1 Ra7 24. Rcd1 Rb7 25. Bc1 Ra7 26. a4 b4 27. Ne2 Qe8 28. Bb2 Qf7 29. Nd2 Qh5 30. hxg5 fxg5 31. Qe3 Rd7 32. Nc4 Rdd8 33. Ng3 Qg6 34. Nxa5 h5 35. Qe4 Qe8 36. Ne2 h4 37. Rf1 Nf4 38. f3 Be6 39. Nxf4 Rxf4 40. Qe2 g4 41. Bc1 gxf3 42. Rxf3 Rg4 43. Rdf1 Rg6 44. Nc4 Bg4 45. Be3 Rd5 46. a5 Bxf3 47. Rxf3 Bxe5 48. Nb6 Rd8 49. a6 Re6 50. a7 Bc7 51. a8=Q Rxa8 52. Nxa8 Qxa8 53. Rf1 Qe8 54. Qf3 Bd6 55. Qf5 Rf6 56. Qg5+ Kh7 57. Qxh4+ Kg7
Scott Ligon (2025-02-17 02:42:51)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Or if you just want to see what would have happened if you had played 52. Nxa8, we can analyze the game here. My impression during the game was that we were headed for a draw but I can take a closer look.
Scott Ligon (2025-02-16 21:19:28)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
Since I only won because you made a mistake entering the last move, I will give you a return match at 10 million nodes. You can play it however you want but if we reach a position where I can see that the 10 million node strategy takes me into a losing position, I will take over at that point. Other than that one game, I'm officially retiring the 10 million node strategy since I already know that white can win against it.
Check the waiting lists. I think there's a tournament where I'm first on the list and there's one other player. If you enter third, I believe you would have white against me. I think that's how it works.
Herbert Kruse (2025-02-16 08:07:53)
Stockfish unbeatable at modest settings?
OK, as chessplayer i See, that 2.- Nc6 ist Not as good as 2.- d6
There are 100 results for Ye in wikichess.
Yeturu Aahlad (2275)
e4 c6 d4 d5 e5 c5 c3 Nc6 Bb5 e6
Transpose to wikichess #23558#
============
Contributors : Yeturu Aahlad
Sergiy Yakovlyev (2336)
e4 c5 Nf3 d6 d4 cxd4 Nxd4 Nf6 Nc3 a6 Be3 e5 Nb3 Be6 f3 h5 Qd2 Nbd7 Nd5 Bxd5 exd5 g6 Be2 Bg7 O-O b6 c4 O-O Rae1 a5
Transpose to wikichess #242138#
============
Contributors : Sergiy Yakovlyev
[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 |  |