Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic Correspondence Chess / Correspondence Chess / Match 2: Rybka Forum vs Ficgs Forum
1 2 3 Previous Next  
- - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-19 13:14
I have just posted on ficgs forum about the possibility of having a second match vs ficgs.

So I thought I would post this here first so I can get some organisational detail sorted out before posting on the main RF board.

Would it be possible to use xfcc play for all games?
Is there a way where the games could be shown live, both on here and at ficgs. I know this would require some work between the two boards, but was wondering if it is technically possible?

The playing format would look something like:

1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment
2) All individual matches are two games
3) Players are to play in rating order. - RF now does have some kind of rating system, at least for WBCCC participants. I think more of their players have also come over to here, so have ratings here.
4) We possibly could use xfcc play, which would allow conditionals to be used, but might mean all the games are played and shown at RF. - Might be possible to have them shown here somehow 'live'.

So, time to get some interest. Who would be willing to participate?
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-19 14:16
I'm in. But I'd also wished if our current ongoing match with this unfinished game was finished before a new one started, as it's really weird to have those matches piling up, and having that one without resolution even after this one finishes (the most sensible options would be to abort game, adjudicate draw, of flag-forfeit SpiderG who hasn't made a move in 13 months).
Parent - - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-19 15:07
I have posted about that matter. Abort game seems fairest result since neither player seems to care about the game or has made a post claiming the game.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-20 01:35
Indeed, now I see that it actually already happened on the Weirwindle111 Vs. Wayne Lowrance game that was aborted.

Rybka Forum Vs. FICGS is officially over on a tie! The second match can begin, and I suggest the name:

FICGS Vs. Rybka Forum

Since it's the come back match.

I suggest you ask Dadi by private message if we could use XfccPlay.

And I hope we don't have as many time forfeits as we had, 75% of the decided games were on the clock!
Parent - - By Vempele (Silver) [fi] Date 2012-05-20 09:23

> And I hope we don't have as many time forfeits as we had, 75% of the decided games were on the clock!


What you need is a shorter time control. Just look at how many games are decided on the board in WBCCC!
Parent - - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-20 11:14

> What you need is a shorter time control. Just look at how many games are decided on the board in WBCCC!


The time control will be 30 moves initial time plus 1 day increment per move from move one till end of the game.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-20 11:17
Is this final?
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-20 11:16
Yes, I'm now proposing: Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 hour increment!

I see the irony but it works!

Also, this was the time control that caused so many time forfeits at FICGS:

20 days, increment : 20 days / 10 moves

Reading the discussion again, it seems this was as close as we could get to forum time controls, and now I see this is way slower than WBCCC time controls.
Parent - - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-20 12:04

> Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 hour increment!


Huh?? Is there a word or two missing there?

I think for a more normal correspondence event, the 1 day increment is required. I am also weary that not all ficgs players are keen on the WBCCC style of event and so this should be run with differences, one being the time control which can be a cause of conflict.

So to increase the chances of quite a few ficgs players participating, I think the 30 days initial, plus 1 day increment is required.

A time control I would not mind experimenting with is: 30 days initial and only when 1 player gets to zero time does the increment start for both players. So something like: 30 days initial, followed by 3 days per move. This time control can cause issues though because of players believing they have won when one of the players gets to zero initial time and then both players start getting the increment.

The second player would still keep their bank of initial time, so if they had 10 days left of initial time, they would be starting the second time control with 10 days plus 3 days per move.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-20 14:32

> Huh?? Is there a word or two missing there?


I just copied your statement from first post:

>1) Time control 30 moves initial plus 1 day increment


And changed day for hour.

Okay, I see 1 hour increment is too extreme, I'd still wonder about what the FICGS players would think about 60 moves initial plus 1 hour increment (slow blitz? I don't know, it still seems like plenty of time to play but I don't know if it's still too fast for them.)

>30 days initial and only when 1 player gets to zero time does the increment start for both players. So something like: 30 days initial, followed by 3 days per move.


That's interesting, what I dislike about big increment time controls is that players seem to drag forever the game in the opening moves, and they don't care about playing faster because they are guaranteed to have enough time for later stages of the game no matter what. What if the increment didn't start until later in the game? Say, 30 days initial, and the 1 day increment only starts after move 20 or move 30? Would this lead to slower or faster time controls than your proposal of increment starting only after a player runs out of time?

>This time control can cause issues though because of players believing they have won when one of the players gets to zero initial time and then both players start getting the increment.


I think this could be easily solved and have the same effect, if, for example, the game had 33 days of initial time, and the 3 day increment starts only after a player has 3 days or less on the clock.

To avoid games too long, we could also limit the time the players can accumulate on the clock after the increment starts, like, say, a player can't accumulate more than two weeks of clock time of the incremental time (after the original time runs out, the max time a player can have on the clock would be 14 days).
Parent - - By Chess_Rambo (***) [at] Date 2012-05-20 18:26
There is a point that I don't like with the Fischer style time control. A player can make pointless moves quickly just to gain time on the clock. And he can use this method to protract the game unnecessarily.

I like the Bronstein system and the Byoyomi system more.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_control

There is a very sophisticated time control system at the Arimaa website.
But it may be to complicated for the typical chess player.

The following is copied from http://arimaa.com/arimaa/

Time Controls

  The Arimaa time controls were chosen to achieve the following:
    1. Keep the game moving, by not allowing a player to
       take forever to make a move and bore the spectators.
    2. Allow a lot of flexibility in specifying the time controls.
    3. Allow for a fixed upper limit on the total game time
       for practical reasons.
    4. Attempt to prevent a player from losing the game due
       to time while imposing these time limits.
    5. Preserve the quality of the game while imposing
       these time limits.
    6. Allow for the most common time controls used in Chess.
       Thus the Arimaa time controls support all the common
       time controls used in Chess and more.

  The time control used for Arimaa is specified as:
    M/R/P/L/G/T
    where M is the number of minutes:seconds per move; required
          R is the number of minutes:seconds in reserve; required
          P is the percent of unused move time that gets
            added to the reserve; optional defaults to 100
          L is the number of minutes:seconds to limit the reserve;
            0 means no limit; optional; defaults to 0
          G is the number of hours:minutes after which time
            the game is halted and the winner is determined
            by score. G can also be specified as the maximum
            number of moves by ending with 't'; 0 means no
            limit; optional; defaults to 0
          T is the number of minutes:seconds within which
            a player must make the move; 0 means no limit;
            optional; defaults to 0

  On each turn a player gets a fixed amount of time per
    move (M) and there may be some amount of time left
    in the reserve (R).
  If a player does not complete the move within the move
    time (M) then the time in reserve (R) is used.  If there is
    no more time remaining in reserve and the player has
    not completed the move then the player automatically loses.
    Even if there is time left in the move or reserve, but the player
    has not made the move within the maximum time allowed
    for moves (T) then the player automatically loses.
  If a player completes the move in less than the
    time allowed for the move (M), then a percentage (P) of the
    remaining time is added to the players reserve.   The
    result is rounded to the nearest second.  This parameter
    is optional and if not specified, it is assumed to be 100%.
  An upper limit (L) can be given for the reserve so that
    the reserve does not exceed L when more time is added to
    the reserve.  If the initial reserve already exceeds this
    limit then more time is not added to the reserve until it
    falls below this limit. The upper limit for the reserve is
    optional and if not given or set to 0 then it implies that
    there is no limit on how much time can be added to the reserve.
  For practical reasons a total game time (G) may be
    set.  If the game is not finished within this allotted time
    then the game is halted and the winner is determined by
    scoring the game.  This parameter is optional and if
    not given (or set to 0) it means there is no limit on the
    game time. Also instead of an upper limit for the total
    game time, an upper limit for the total number of turns each
    player can make may be specified by adding the letter 't'
    after the number. After both players have taken this many
    turns and the game is not finished the winner is determined
    by scoring the game.
Parent - - By keoki010 (Silver) [us] Date 2012-05-20 20:31
I like the thought behind the Arimaa time controls.  Looks very interesting.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-21 01:21
I'm going to say it's over my head, but am willing to support it if it does what it claims.
Parent - - By Fellowship (**) Date 2012-05-25 12:48
I wish , Rybka Forum will let me play.

Neel
Parent - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-25 23:20
Yes, I think this will be open for everyone.
Parent - By Mark Eldridge (****) [gb] Date 2012-05-26 11:52
I'm in.
- - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-21 03:29
I think simpler the better. But the main question is, can the software handle many different time controls?
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-21 05:07
That's a question for Dadi, have you asked him if we can use XfccPlay for this?
Parent - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-21 07:38
I have contacted Dadi about these two issues and awaiting reply.
- - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-26 13:45 Edited 2012-05-27 23:45
I'm going to keep a list of the players that have announced that they want to play:

Mark Eldridge
NeelBasant
Uly
Barnard
NATIONAL12
Parent - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-05-26 20:03
write my name Uly :smile:
- - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-27 06:39
It has been confirmed that we can use xfccplay for all the games, if we wish.

Xfccplay is a playing client where players can make their moves and they are transmitted live to the Rybka Forum sub forum where these games will be shown live. Hopefully it will be possible to also show them on ficgs live.

I certainly do want the second match to be very different to the first. To start with, that no games end with time outs.

Likely format:

Time control: 30 days initial plus 1 day increment.
Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent
Number of players for each team: As many players as we can get for both teams
Board Order: By rating for those who have ratings on the site they are playing for. Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-27 15:39

> Others can be placed at captain’s discretion.


Last match we had no captain. We ordered unrated players alphabetically (by surname if available, otherwise by handle) and it worked. To avoid any strategy of player sorting in the Boards I suggest we just go with alphabetical order of unrated players again.

Also, I hope to see you playing Garvin :smile:, last time both organizers at each side did play.
Parent - - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-27 15:41

> Also, I hope to see you playing Garvin :smile:, last time both organizers at each side did play.


I will be playing, representing ficgs.

How RF wants to handle their unrated players is up to you :smile: but this time with some players having ratings, you might want to put an unrated player on a high board if you think that is their standard of play in the team.
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-27 15:44

> I will be playing, representing ficgs.


Ohh, since you'llbe ont he other side, does the Rybka Forum have a representative? Otherwise I propose myself :yell:
Parent - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-05-27 22:33

>does the Rybka Forum have a representative? Otherwise I propose myself


ok with me
Parent - - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) [gb] Date 2012-05-27 23:24
I may play for Rybka forum in next match.
Parent - - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-05-28 00:10
Paul,want you play now?if you want,i will retire myself,so you can play

and please,dont tell me 'not' just because you want me play

edited:i thought it was only a 4 player match,that is why offered you to play instead of me :red:
Parent - - By NATIONAL12 (Gold) [gb] Date 2012-05-28 00:14
I am having a bit of fun,I will play anytime.:smile:
Parent - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-05-28 00:19
ok

but if a small team is made,and you havent a place to play,you can take mine Paul
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-05-27 15:40

> Format: Each player plays two games against a single opponent


What about playing two different opponents with each color like in the WBCCC? That would allow players to play twice the different opponents, and would avoid the case where weak player is paired against stronger player, the stronger gets 2 points without much effort (basically, all the benefits we're getting in WBCCC by Double Swiss.)
Parent - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-05-27 22:35
Uly,that has no sense;if a player is weak,will be weak against all the players...and i think is better that the weak player plays against the same,so the other stronger players will have easiest games,because they wont play against the strong player
- - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-05-27 06:39
Mark Eldridge, will you be playing for Rybka Forum or Ficgs?
Parent - By Mark Eldridge (****) [gb] Date 2012-05-27 10:54
I will be paying for the Forum just as last time.
- - By siah (***) Date 2012-05-28 06:18
Where can I get the best corr games of Ficgs?? :fat:
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-06-02 15:50
Beats me.

(saying this because I was notified about this post)
Parent - - By siah (***) Date 2012-06-02 17:38
Why?
Parent - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-06-02 19:37
I don't know where you can get the best games of ficgs.
Parent - - By keoki010 (Silver) [us] Date 2012-06-03 13:56
go to ficgs. You can download all the games.
Parent - - By siah (***) Date 2012-06-04 08:15
I have gone, but didn't found anything.
Parent - By keoki010 (Silver) [us] Date 2012-06-04 14:06
If you are registered there login and go to "search games" on the left hand side of the page. About halfway down the page you'll see "CHess all games" click on it and you can download all of the finished games in a database.
Parent - - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-06-04 14:36
Click on search games on the left hand side bar, then scroll down till you see CHESS All games (pgn).

Then click, or right click and away you go.
Parent - - By siah (***) Date 2012-06-05 08:40
Is the games of ficgs the corr games played by engines?
Parent - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-06-05 08:46

> Is the games of ficgs the corr games played by engines?


Almost all the games, especially those by the higher rated players are computer assisted. Ficgs is primarily a freestyle/centaur site, with only a few tournaments that are advertised as human only. Some players may choose to play human only, but it is marketed and promoted as a centaur site.
- - By Garvin Gray (****) Date 2012-06-01 18:20
I have been informed that the conditional move system of xfccplay can not be removed just for one tournament, so if we use xfccplay for at least half the games, conditionals will be in operation.

I still think we can go ahead with using xfccplay, just that the half of the games that are played using xfccplay will have conditionals, and the ones played at ficgs will not.

While it is an issue, it is not a big issue, or a showstopper.

Everyone will still be playing two games against the same opponent. One here with xfccplay and one at ficgs.

I will give a couple of days for feedback. If there is no discussion, I will formalise details and then we will move on to official collection of entries, getting players familiar with xfccplay and then on to the games proper.
Parent - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-06-01 18:42

> Everyone will still be playing two games against the same opponent.


Who at Rybka Forum agreed to that? Back when I thought you were representing Rybka Forum, I thought you agreed to that with FICGS, and it was fine. However, now that it seems you are a representative of the FICGS side, I'd like to challenge the match conditions.

Have you communicated to FICGS about the possibility of having 2 games against different opponents instead of against one as in the WBCCC?
Parent - - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-06-01 21:18
sorry Garvin,but if understood you right,the half of the games will be played at FICGS,and to do that,we will must register at FICGS??
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-06-01 21:24
Only half the players would need to have a FICGS account, as the other half can play in xfccplay. Players could be sorted to minimize the number of players that have to register at the other side.

Or at least, that's how things went on the previous match.
Parent - - By Barnard (Bronze) Date 2012-06-01 21:29
i wouldnt register at FICGS,im registered in enough forums

about players playing 2 games against the same opponent,or playing against 2 different opponents,i dont get the point;if one player is a weak player,will play weak,dont mind against the player will help...but that point isnt a trouble for me:if the major part of our team want your rules (2 games against different opponents),i will give my vote to that rule,if the major part of the players of our team wants to play 2 games against the same player,i will give my vote to that option
Parent - - By Uly (Gold) [mx] Date 2012-06-01 21:35
Do you think the WBCCC would be better if you had to play the same opponent twice instead of two different opponents?
Up Topic Correspondence Chess / Correspondence Chess / Match 2: Rybka Forum vs Ficgs Forum
1 2 3 Previous Next  

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill