Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Correspondence Chess / Correspondence Chess / Ozymandias Vs. Vytron 1/2-1/2
1 2 3 Previous Next  
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-09 19:47
Complications? That's subjective.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-10 01:28
Right, I've been using the wrong word. I should be using "complex." Chess complexity is an actual attribute of chess positions, and I know how to measure it. If you beat me it'll probably be because you can surf the complex waves better than I can. But I'm not aiming for a draw or simplifications.

Anyway, good news, I completely missed a3 :yell: (will all my analysis go to waste or will I find a way to transpose into positions where you played a3 in the future?) - I just hope this game doesn't become a runaway where you just wasted your time against an easy opponent.

But if a3 was best, I'll find a way to have found it, and hopefully improve, as it goes whenever this happens (which is rare, as it never happened at FICGS, and only happened once in my entire ICCF history, so this is something already.)
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-10 10:41
"Complexity" is measurable. But at what point said complexity becomes too much for a given player, will depend on the player, and when it does, it translates into complications.

I don't aim for anything. I play what's available, given the current state of theory and my opponent's repertoire. This usually results in a draw, it has nothing to do with my intentions.

I didn't waste much time, I'm still focusing on the remaining LSS game, in the sense that I want to clear the analysis board before populating it with lines from our game.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-10 22:49

> But at what point said complexity becomes too much for a given player, will depend on the player


I've never been able to figure out what complexity is right for me, and I think most of the games I lost in the corr section were because I overshoot and couldn't deal with the complications. However, losing games is the fastest way to improve for me, as they say "best decisions come from experience, experience comes from bad decisions."

As for our game, I don't think I'd have played a3 as white on there, though it seems it's the best at shrinking black's winning chances, and black moves are kind of easy to predict, as white I focus on increasing white's winning chances and reduce drawing chances. My move below:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7

1n1q1rk1/r3bppp/bpp1pn2/p2p4/2PP4/PPN3P1/3NPPBP/R1BQ1RK1 w - -


I have moved.
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-11 06:58
It doesn't matter whether you're white or black. It all comes down to what your opponent plays. I've only played (including the predictable draw I have left at LSS) a total of seven corr games, all of them in the last 12 months. I've had one win with each colour and two very favourable positions, also from each side of the board. When your opponent goes the wrong way, you can talk about increasing winning chances and reducing drawing chances, but if he doesn't, with the aid of current engines, it's just not worth the hassle.

But then again, I was never a fan of these very long games, I guess regular players might find that entertaining.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-11 15:04

>When your opponent goes the wrong way, you can talk about increasing winning chances and reducing drawing chances, but if he doesn't, with the aid of current engines, it's just not worth the hassle.


Opponents don't go "the wrong way" unless you put a position in their face that they don't know how to play. My won games have been mostly against "engine slaves" that just set the position and let the engine analyze for some time, and play its move like parrots, if you figure out what they're doing, you can predict most of their moves (and they tend to play worse than what you predict) and go into positions that you predict they'll misplay. But if the position is drawish, you can predict all their moves and still predict that they're going to draw you in a boring draw. That's why I find the Catalan suboptimal when wanting to win a game. That's what I think after spending 12 years on this sport. Saying "it's just not worth the hassle" is equivalent to saying "winning is just not worth the hassle."

>I was never a fan of these very long games, I guess regular players might find that entertaining.


There's nothing wrong with 30 days + 1 day time control, or 20 day + 2 day time control, or even complex "Triple block" one that ICCF has (that guarantees the game ending within a year). But more than that is ridiculous and unnecessary, and it's full of games you're going to win but your opponent will keep playing on for more than a year and at that point you don't even care about the win. That's why I announced my retirement from absurd 50 days + 50 days for every 10 moves time control a few days ago, the games are so long that, indeed, winning isn't just worth the hassle...
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-11 16:25
Where I come from, there're no complex positions to throw at your opponent anymore, hence the Catalan is as good (bad) as any other. If your'e going to waste away engine aid, it should suffice. If not, the draw will come anyway. In that scenario, why chose a relatively more complex but ultimately drawish route? Specially if chasing such a line obfuscates the character of the position, not in the sense that anyone is in any real danger, but meaning that you no longer know who's better. In the past, I've deliberately chosen an inferior move, for the only reason that it would keep the game alive, but that was with weaker engines available and at Freestyle time controls. Such techniques would render no fruit in nowadays correspondence chess, against decent opposition.

Where I say "very long games", I may read "any correspondence game". :wink:
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-11 19:29
I can say with absolutely certainty that the four games I'm winning against opponents hundreds of points higher than me in the ICCF, I wouldn't be winning with your approach.

Tell me Ozy, in what way would you play if you know your opponent is hundreds of points weaker than you? Would you still play the Catalan? I don't think it makes sense to play the position, if that just makes weaker opponents find the path to a draw with ease.

I can only conclude that all you say is true only against "decent opposition", but that "decent opposition" is rare (...at least in the ICCF and FICGS), and many high rated opponents are "indecent", so it pays off to treat them as if they were much weaker, the surprise can be that they're indeed very weak, and that they play weaker than Stockfish at Depth 28...
Parent - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-11 21:43
The only Elo ratings that mean anything are those for whom the system was created: humans. Correspondence ratings, website ratings, engine ratings (as soon as you try to cross-compare)... are an approximation done using a tool that isn't exactly appropriate. Take Lc0's "ego" for example.

Decent opposition isn't that rare. As I said, out of the 7 games I played, 3 were boring draws. Those guys knew what they were doing, at least to the point where they were able to draw (which is all that matters nowadays). Could I have beaten the 2 players that started their games badly? With what opening? I got them to play bad positions, but there's so much you can force your opponent to play.

What seems to be inexistent, is opposition capable of creating real trouble, much less beating me. In fact, the only time I've seen a bad position, was in my black win. You might say that this is precisely why I was able to score the win at all, but I'd say that the way I reached a good middle game position, was mostly by chance. I let the engine/book, play the game unassisted up to move 40, and only when I saw a couple of dubious moves from white, did I take the reins. The engine would've probably wasted the edge, and I wasn't going to let such a guy win the stage. He wasn't bad, but he was only winning games because he opened the game with an unorthodox opening (much in your line). I wanted to make him think twice about abusing this approach, because it only works if your opponent is weaker, it's not necessary in such cases and it can backfire.
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-12 20:00
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-13 20:10
I'm a bit worried about your tactical prowess, but as long as things remain positional I think I'll be fine.

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8

1n1qnrk1/r3bppp/bpp1p3/p2p4/2PP4/PPN3P1/1B1NPPBP/R2Q1RK1 w - -
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-15 20:17
Believe me, you're "safe" and "fine"; dubious moves avoided, of course.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-16 05:49
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6

1n1q1rk1/r3bppp/bppnp3/p2p4/2PP4/PPN3P1/1B1NPPBP/2RQ1RK1 w - -
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-18 05:02
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-18 06:16
Ponder hit!

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7

3q1rk1/r2nbppp/bppnp3/p2p4/N1PP4/PP4P1/1B1NPPBP/2RQ1RK1 w - -
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-18 08:30

>Ponder hit!


As you said, after a3, "black moves are kind of easy to predict". Well the same could be applied to white, so I wouldn't be surprised if you get more of those.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-19 02:59
Yeah, I've been predicting your moves (other than 10. a3), Ponder Hits mean I reply without further analysis (as I never "ponder", I only analyze when it's my time to move.)

Figures you could beat me by preparing a move like 10. a3 (except it goes to winning positions), I wonder if I could surprise you at all.
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-19 21:37
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-20 09:47
PH!

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5

3q1rk1/r2nb1pp/bppnp3/p2p1p2/N1PP4/PP2P1P1/1B1N1PBP/2RQ1RK1 w - -
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-20 11:37
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-21 06:55
PH!

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8

4qrk1/r2nb1pp/bppnp3/p2p1p2/2PP4/PPN1P1P1/1B1N1PBP/2RQ1RK1 w - -
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-22 08:30
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-22 15:28
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6

4qrk1/r3b1pp/bppnpn2/p2p1p2/P1PP4/1PN1P1P1/1B1N1PBP/2RQ1RK1 w - -
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-23 05:46
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-24 14:55
Hmmm...

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7

4qrk1/2r1b1pp/bppnpn2/p2p1p2/P1PP4/BPN1P1P1/3N1PBP/2RQ1RK1 w - -
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-24 15:30
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-24 16:22
PH!

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4

4qrk1/2r1b1pp/bpp1pn2/p2p1p2/P1PPn3/BPN1P1P1/3N1PBP/2RQR1K1 w - -
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-24 16:32
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8
12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4 19. Bxe7
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-24 16:44
19...Qxe7
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-24 18:36
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Ncxe4
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-25 12:25
Um, I guess this is where I send a humongous conditional line (highlighted in Yellow) and you'd tell me where you'd deviate from it?

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Ncxe4 dxe4 21. c5 bxc5 22. Rxc5 Nd7 23. Rxa5 Bd3 24. Nc4 Bxc4 25. bxc4 Qb4 26. Ra6 Qb7 27. Ra5 Qb4
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-25 16:49
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Ncxe4 dxe4 21. c5 bxc5 22. Rxc5 Nd7 23. Rxa5 Bd3 24. Nc4 Bxc4 25. bxc4 Qb4 26. Ra6 Qb7 27. Ra5 Qb4 28. Ra6
Parent - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-26 03:04
:eek:

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Ncxe4 dxe4 21. c5 bxc5 22. Rxc5 Nd7 23. Rxa5 Bd3 24. Nc4 Bxc4 25. bxc4 Qb4 26. Ra6 Qb7 27. Ra5 Qb4 28. Ra6 Qb7 {Draw offer}

20. Ncxe4 was extremely surprising. It seems white shuts down completely its own chances of winning, just to completely shut down black's chances of winning, perhaps hoping for 20...fxe4 where white gains clear advantage? 20. Ncxe4 is the kind of move white would play in draw odds, ensuring a point.

But I can't find a better move by black in any of these positions, so it looks like 4...Be7?? is the problem, at least I don't reach 1...Nf6?? yet...
- - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-26 05:29
I always prefer to draw on the board, for which you only need play Qb4.
1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Ncxe4 dxe4 21. c5 bxc5 22. Rxc5 Nd7 23. Rxa5 Bd3 24. Nc4 Bxc4 25. bxc4 Qb4 26. Ra6 Qb7 27. Ra5 Qb4 28. Ra6 Qb7 29. Ra5
Ncxe4 surprising? Winning chances? I told you a long time ago this was a boring draw, and now you see it's just that.

This is the second time I tell you, well in advance, the outcome of a game; maybe you'l believe now that this is the only difference there can be between players of different strength nowadays (being able to see the outcome earlier).
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-26 05:56
LMAO, I was this close to playing Qb6 and giving away the game, glad I double checked the mouse slip...

1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 e6 3. Nf3 d5 4. g3 Be7 5. Bg2 O-O 6. O-O c6 7. Nc3 a5 8. b3 b6 9. Nd2 Ba6 10. a3 Ra7 11. Bb2 Ne8 12. Rc1 Nd6 13. Na4 Nd7 14. e3 f5 15. Nc3 Qe8 16. a4 Nf6 17. Ba3 Rc7 18. Re1 Nde4 19. Bxe7 Qxe7 20. Ncxe4 dxe4 21. c5 bxc5 22. Rxc5 Nd7 23. Rxa5 Bd3 24. Nc4 Bxc4 25. bxc4 Qb4 26. Ra6 Qb7 27. Ra5 Qb4 28. Ra6 Qb7 29. Ra5 Qb4 1/2-1/2 {Threefold repetition}

Is this my very first game with this result? I don't remember another threefold...

> Ncxe4 surprising? Winning chances? I told you a long time ago this was a boring draw, and now you see it's just that.


I just want to know if you'd have played these white moves if I was some random 1600 rated guy at FICGS. Maybe if I was then you'd have beaten me no matter what I played (a 1600 doesn't play like this?) but there's some point where if you're superior to an opponent you have to play into positions that test it.

> This is the second time I tell you, well in advance, the outcome of a game; maybe you'l believe now that this is the only difference there can be between players of different strength nowadays (being able to see the outcome earlier).


We started these matches because you posted this statement:

As for FICGS players being drawish... maybe at the very top (although that's only because of the amount of time in their hands), other than that, I think I could beat any player, they're not different. Some use a computer, some don't and some use it wrong. :twisted:
~Ozymandias

The key point "I think I could beat any player, they're not different". Do you still claim that? Do you still think you could beat me?
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-26 10:17
I just think you'd be at the top if you played like this consistently. The operating word being "consistently", which calls for many games. One game won't tell you anything, I also said that before starting.

Had you been a random 1600 rated guy at FICGS, I would've looked at your games, same as anyone else. From there I would've beaten you if you'd be one of these categories: "some don't and [or] some use it wrong". I you use a computer correctly, you're automatically at the top.

What I didn't believe was that you were having trouble with those guys, other than playing the French and the like. Once you abstain from those dubious decisions, you're "safe" ;-)
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-26 12:13

> What I didn't believe was that you were having trouble with those guys


I meant, problems beating them. I specifically pointed them out, because I don't have problems beating people at ICCF, even when they have 200 rating points more than the FICGS guys. I'm the same guy, so my only conclusion is that ICCF people are more careless. Or maybe ICCF guys just go over-board with the number of their games, having so many they can't handle them, so someone like me can "focus-punch" them. I wonder if this is the main difference, and if you could have held me in this game at this level if you had other 49 games going on, so the guys I'm beating wouldn't have had problems if they were only playing me.

Anyway, thanks for the game!

For our game where I'm white, I wonder if we could arrange something. I think you didn't play 1.e4 fearing 1...e5, but we could have played some epic Sicilian, so we can talk about our openings in advance. What would you play against 1.e4 ? If you refuse to answer I guess I'd just go for 1.d4, but my mainline was recently busted by some Japanese guy :eek:

Also, I was wondering if you'd like to play the game in another place to avoid the "Max User Connections" Problem. So, the ICCF doesn't allow one to do anything, FICGS doesn't allow one to challenge someone for a corr game, and the LSS has this system where we open a Lobby to play, but it's public so anyone can enter it and play us instead... what about your Forum? I wanted here for the audience (that's why I was posting the boards every move), but we got no audience, so perhaps we'd get more over there...
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-26 16:25

>I don't have problems beating people at ICCF, even when they have 200 rating points more than the FICGS guys.


Not unlike the 40/40 and 40/4 rating lists, ICCF and FICGS ratings aren’t comparable. Same thing for LSS and the rest.:eek:

>I wonder if this is the main difference, and if you could have held me in this game at this level if you had other 49 games going on


As I told you, I didn’t invest much time or resources on this. Could I play 50? Sure, I’ve played 6 with only one computer and the fastest time control I could find, in any of the three main servers. At 10 moves in 50 days with duplication after 20 days (ICCF) hundreds of concurrent games can be confidently played.:cool:

>I think you didn't play 1.e4 fearing 1...e5


You think? I seem to recall I explicilty stated so.:confused:

>so we can talk about our openings in advance


Even more? Not a chance. :evil:

>Also, I was wondering if you'd like to play the game in another place to avoid the "Max User Connections" Problem.


The backup board is impervious to problems. We’re talking about a profit venture that builds its reputation on availability. Just don’t expect an audience.:neutral:
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-26 17:53

> Not unlike the 40/40 and 40/4 rating lists, ICCF and FICGS ratings aren’t comparable. Same thing for LSS and the rest.:eek:


But they'd need to be like 500 elo apart for what I've experienced to make sense.

Also... "the rest"? I could never find another serious place to play corr chess online, it's full of places that don't allow engines and... huh, trash, to use some nice word.

> At 10 moves in 50 days with duplication after 20 days (ICCF) hundreds of concurrent games can be confidently played.:cool:


My limit was 60. I'm glad I didn't try 80 or something, or I'd have gone in flames and lost like 20 games on time (I refuse to decrease my moves' quality, and with 60 I had like 3 games that went down to 2 days left, simultaneously...)

> Just don’t expect an audience.:neutral:


I guess correspondence chess audiences died, but at least it's something that died recently, I still had some in my game against Antares, where... the audience just wasted their time watching unfinished game...

Anyway, there's this thing I like to call "our game".

And yeah, my Vytron online persona turns out to be a half-peacock, half-cat... blue thing, that is apparently a zombie. Long history but uninteresting... at least it kind of goes with the "centaur" theme, in a way...
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-26 20:26

>But they'd need to be like 500 elo apart for what I've experienced to make sense.


I wouldn't rule it out.

>it's full of places that don't allow engines


Even today? The only one I know that still tries to enforce the ban on engines, is IECC.

>half-peacock, half-cat... blue thing, that is apparently a zombie


Looked more like a Pokemon to me.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-27 05:54 Edited 2019-07-27 06:06

>I wouldn't rule it out.


:eek:

I guess that makes most ICCF titles kind of irrelevant. Today I beat this 2388 rated player titled "SIM" (I don't even know what that means, Super International Master? - he was from your Country)

1.d4 d5 2.c4 c6 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.e3 Bg4 5.h3 Bh5 6.g4 Bg6 7.Nc3 e6 8.Nh4 Bb4 9.Qb3 Qe7 10.Nxg6 hxg6 11.Bg2 Nbd7 12.Bd2 a5 13.g5 Nh7 14.h4 a4 15.Qc2 Nb6 16.cxd5 exd5 17.a3 Ba5 18.O-O-O Nf8 19.Bf1 Ne6 20.Bd3 Kf8 21.Kb1 Qe8 22.f4 Kg8 23.h5 gxh5 24.g6 fxg6 25.Bxg6 Qe7 26.Nxa4 Nc4 27.Bc1 h4 28.e4 Nf8 29.e5 b5 30.Nc5 Bb6 31.f5 Nxg6 32.f6 Qe8 33.Rhg1 Bxc5 34.Rxg6 Ra7 35.e6 Bf8 36.Re1 Rh7 37.f7+ Rxf7 38.exf7+ Qxf7 39.Rg2 Qd7 40.Rf2 1-0

Did black play at some 1900 LSS level? Could be... About to get another 4 wins like that...

Ratings seem meaningless, players at 2100 are playing better than 2400 elo people, I don't get what's going on on the ICCF, at least people at FICGS and the LSS seem more consistent with that.

>Even today? The only one I know that still tries to enforce the ban on engines, is IECC.


Here's some places you can't use engines in:

https://www.redhotpawn.com/
https://www.dailychess.com/
https://www.schemingmind.com/
http://gameknot.com
http://www.chessworld.net/
http://www.itsyourturn.com/
http://www.remoteschach.de/main/index.php3
http://www.stansco.com/netchess/index.html
http://www.chesscorner.net/
http://www.mychess.de/

Some are not explicit about it, so I wasted time registering in some of them just to find out they banned engines after reading their rules. One of them didn't even list that on their rules, I figured it out by reading posts talking about players cheating, and being banned, alongside with proof that some of these sites have top rated people that use engines and haven't been caught because nobody cares...

So the only working solutions I found were the ICCF, FICGS, and the LSS. And basically the only reason I still play on ICCF is because "my country needs me" :yell:

(...

Unless the key word is "enforce", so one is supposed to play on those places and ignore their rules...)

> Looked more like a Pokemon to me.


Nowadays it's more easy to identify the Pokemons from the non-Pokemons:



Yup...
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-27 06:42
Senior International Correspondence Chess Master

>players at 2100 are playing better than 2400 elo people, I don't get what's going on on the ICCF, at least people at FICGS and the LSS seem more consistent with that.


The first part was already commented on:
"I only played a few games at ICCF and one of my opponents, who only used computer advice in certain positions, mentioned the very same thing you say about LSS, but applied to his experience at ICCF."
The second part... Maybe a variation of "It could very well be the case, that high ratings are old and people starting may play correctly with computers", meaning that ICCF is old and many old Elos may still remain. Some have updated their play and remain at 2500-2600, while others haven't and are going down. As with any elo progression, you first get the playing strength, and afterwards, you get the corresponding Elo.

Of the places you mention, remoteschach is the only one I identify as a correspondence server. The others I either don't know, or are more like regular playing sites (faster time controls). As for remoteschach, maybe they split the "engine/not engine" with freechess? I thought the later was the one still operating, until I clicked on your link, I couldn't even find a working address for remoteschach, every search redirected me to freechess :eek:
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-27 08:21

> . Some have updated their play and remain at 2500-2600, while others haven't and are going down.


The guys that should be 2500-2600 are going up very slowly, and the guys that should be 1900-2000 are going down too slowly. I wonder where I'll end at, probably I should cease playing people around my rating...

>Of the places you mention, remoteschach is the only one I identify as a correspondence server. The others I either don't know, or are more like regular playing sites (faster time controls).


"Faster time controls" but still 3day per move. I couldn't handle it because I kept forgetting and lost my games on time, as it happened before I left lichess (when they implemented corr games). I don't know who thought it was a good idea to start with 0 time on the clock, and be given fixed time for every move, but apparently for corr chess it's the most common thing, and banned engines is the most common thing.

You still haven't mentioned another site that could compete with FICGS/LSS/ICCF. All have something I dislike, I didn't continue playing in the LSS because of their "game limit" thing (once I can play many games I'm no longer interested), but I guess it's the best of the three.

But still, I only count three corr chess sites.

> I couldn't even find a working address for remoteschach, every search redirected me to freechess :eek:


Bizarre, I can just surf remoteschach.de just fine. freechess is FICS and it's a completely different thing (a real time chess playing server, not for corr chess.) I don't know Dutch/German, so I don't know where remoteschach.de has their "Engines allowed" mode section, but other sites that disallow engines and have a specific "Engines allowed" section that I've seen, have that section like a ghost town (because most people in there don't like playing engines, for whatever reason).
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-27 14:11
https://www.redhotpawn.com/
http://gameknot.com
http://www.itsyourturn.com/
Those sites I know of as regular chess servers, I've never used them, so it's possible they offer correspondence chess too. But IntinityChess has always talked about offering that, and even if they did, I'd still consider them a regular chess server.

I've mentioned IECC and freechess.de (not to be mistaken with FICS). The later one is very similar in appearance to remoteschach, so they may be from the same people. There's also:
http://www.desc-online.de
https://bdf-schachserver.de
I'm sure that's not even a complete list.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-27 15:10

> Those sites I know of as regular chess servers, I've never used them, so it's possible they offer correspondence chess too.


I have used them, and their main offering is 3day/move chess (correspondence chess). In fact, in two of those sites, you can't play "regular chess" at all, so I guess this is the point where I leave you guessing which one is the only site from redhotpawn/gameknot/itsyourturn that allows real time chess (hint: in the other two you can check ongoing games, and see people have days remaining for their next move.)

I guess if you're actually looking for a regular chess server, you're up for a surprise, or two (not being able to create games faster than 1day/move at all in those sites)...

>But IntinityChess has always talked about offering that, and even if they did, I'd still consider them a regular chess server.


I don't think anything other than engines games have been played at InfinityChess for several years, and in last update they broke kibitzing games for a bit, so who knows if regular chess/corr chess/freestyle chess was broken a while ago and nobody has noticed yet...

> IECC


"IECC does not allow the use of chess engines as many other sites do. " -> Not able to compete with LSS

>freechess.de
>http://www.desc-online.de
>https://bdf-schachserver.de


I'm not even able to check if they allow engines or not because I can't speak their language. Are any of those better than the LSS?
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-27 17:58
I never said they were better, just that you couldn't compare ratings from LSS to those in the rest of the servers (ICCF, FICGS, freechess,DESC,BDF,IECC).
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-28 08:50
This was your comment after I said LSS/ICCF/FICGS were the only sites I knew that would allow engine usage:

Even today? The only one I know that still tries to enforce the ban on engines, is IECC.
~Ozymandias

Sounded like all corr chess servers allowed engines, except for IECC, but I've only seen "the big three" allowing them.

I guess I should have said "corr chess servers in English", I ignore what's going on with German/Dutch servers...

PS - Still waiting for your move in our game on your forum.
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-28 11:29
I have more than 6 hours left for that move. I know I've been playing faster since I finished my last LSS game, but that was basically because I had the line analized for like 15 moves. Right now, I prefer not to turn on the computer, so I'm planning on making the book moves last as long as possible (hopefully until the end of August).
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) Date 2019-07-29 14:08

> Right now, I prefer not to turn on the computer, so I'm planning on making the book moves last as long as possible (hopefully until the end of August)


Well, good luck with that, because I don't want this to be a theoretical waste where you uncork a powerful line refutation that I don't have in my book/database, and the whole game becomes pointless. So my aim will be to get you out of book ASAP, so whatever you'd have planned to play against a mainline (most common played moves by white) doesn't appear.

I guess the worst thing that could happen is that you have everything covered, so you remain playing from book and I just end in a worse position than if I played a mainline, but that'd just mean I could never defeat you, anyway...

(just moved)

PS - Sorry for creating the thread in the wrong subforum, hopefully I didn't move the piece to the wrong square as well...
Parent - - By Ozymandias (****) Date 2019-07-29 14:55
So you basically want me to turn on the toaster in the middle of August, you scoundrel. Well, the London isn't exactly the most explored of lines, but I hope to keep in book for a while, nonetheless. Just wait 47 hours for my reply.:twisted:

No squares over there, no possibility of going wrong in that department, although I wouldn't say you were "wrong" placing the thread, just not well organised enough for my tastes.

PS: if you end in a bad enough position, you could very well face defeat yourself, so don't lose sight of that outcome as the really worst scenario possible.
Up Topic Correspondence Chess / Correspondence Chess / Ozymandias Vs. Vytron 1/2-1/2
1 2 3 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill