FICS vs. ICS: No, really, which is better?
Peter Claus Noehrenberg
Hopefully, you are looking forward to shifting through the public and public postings
you are inviting on this issue (well, at least you get paid to do it!).
Please encourage the feature writer covering this topic to also solicit information
from r.g.c.--he may have some questions we would *love* to start some new threads
with, I'm sure 8^).
Good luck!
PCN
Eric Berlin
Internet World magazine. Having now retrieved the correct software, and
having now verified that it works equally well on both the paying and free
chess servers, I have but one question:
Why, then, would I go to the paid server? What does ICS offer that FICS
does not? I have noticed, and attended, some of the "special events" on
ICS. Is that enough? Is there more? Does FICS plan to offer similar events?
I realize that there is a huge argument over just these very questions. I'm simply
wondering if any answers have yet arisen.
And, yes, a second writer is also covering this same story for the same magazine.
He's writing a feature; I'm writing my gaming column. We'll be complementing each
other, is my hope.
Thanks for your input.
-- Eric Berlin
Michael Cummings
>As I posted before, I'm writing about Chess for my September column in
>Internet World magazine. Having now retrieved the correct software, and
>having now verified that it works equally well on both the paying and free
>chess servers, I have but one question:
>
>Why, then, would I go to the paid server? What does ICS offer that FICS
>does not? I have noticed, and attended, some of the "special events" on
>ICS. Is that enough? Is there more? Does FICS plan to offer similar events?
I'm still using both, and haven't made up my mind which I prefer, or if I'm
going to abandon ICC. Here are some of my thoughts:
I originally went along with the anti-ICC crowd; I didn't see any reason to
pay for a chess server when one is available for free. However, my first
few hours on FICS sent me back for another look at ICC. Why? Because I
ran into more rude comments, match refusals, and poor sportsmanship on FICS
than I had experienced in a year and a half on ICS. I don't know why, but
I have a few ideas.
A lot of people use FICS as a MUD, just for socializing. I'm not opposed
to that per se, although I don't understand why someone who doesn't play
chess would use a chess server when there are plenty of chat servers
available. This leads to a few problems. One is that I keep getting bored
students bugging me during matches. I know I can just ignore them, but I
never like to just be rude to people, especially when they might actually
have something to tell me that might be of interest. Another is match
refusals; I see a player open for a match, and challenge him. He refuses,
as he doesn't play chess. I once tried to get a match on FICS for a solid
half hour, and was refused by everyone. I usually have a lot more refusals
on FICS than ICC. I know I'm not on the abusers list, so I either have
some form of net-transmissible cooties, or there are a lot of people on
FICS who don't care to play. I wish they'd set open to 0 if that's the
case.
I don't know what it is about FICS, but I've been cussed at more times in a
few hours there than in my whole career at ICS/ICC. Maybe I'm just
unlucky. I refuse to believe that there's anything inherently less
friendly about FICS, but I think it might attract more of the weirdos. I
don't understand it.
Now, since this is USENET, home of the knee-jerk reaction, let me make this
clear: I am NOT saying the people on ICC are angels, while FICS is the home
of scum. I'm certain this is not true, and I have run into some obnoxious
behavior on ICC. I'm just saying that this has been my personal
experience. It's likely that I'm unlucky, but whatever the reason, I'm
having more fun on ICC and dealing with less abuse. I *like* FICS and
will continue to use it, but I may keep my membership in ICC just because
the atmosphere has been better for me, and I have an easier time getting a
game.
--
Mike Cummings http://www.hsas.washington.edu/Mike/Mike.html
"And why...why do little blue midgets hit me with fish?" - The Tick
DAV
The difference between FICS and ICC (formerly ICS) is really just one feature,
the amount of GM games/lectures. This is because being a paying server, ICC
can use some of the resources to give the GMs appearance fees and pay them
for their time, where as GMs on FICS are there for goodwill or by a few users
getting together to origanise such events.
However, FICS did have a GM simul as well as a GM lecture Thursday, and there
were more GM games on the Friday. We hope to organise more events in the future.
Other differences are more short term. Examine and timestamp modes are
coming shortly to FICS as is ECO, etc. We also plan to add features that ICC
doesn't have and extend those it does.
The player base/number on in a day is irrelevant at present as most people
on ICC have until the end of August to extend their account. By then FICS
should have a majority of players (or at least registered ones).
Also FICS may crash more often at present. This is because of the speed that
the code is changing, meaning more new code and more chance of an errors
occuring. Remember ICC has had two years head start...
We 'should' now be stable. We have got rid a the bug that caused a crash
every few hours and have got rid of a bug that caused the server to 'hang'
doing nothing, the later caused a few problems Thursday. There may be a few
problems in the future we hope the number of problems will decrease. Typing
'up' on either server does not give an indication of when the last crash
was. This is because the server has to be shut to bring new features in.
At FICS downtime is usually only a few seconds.
The problem with the 'weird' players and cussing will take a little while
to stop. This is simply because FICS is a new server and invites anyone
to join (as long as they follow the etiquette rules). If you get a problem
with an annoying person please tell an admin. They are prepared to take time
to talk to the user and impose sanctions on them if really necessary. As far as
the 'bored' students go. Sure we get a few. They also bring players in who
like to talk and play chess. Again being a new server FICS is a new toy and
therefore this type of user is bound to experiment.
One advantage of FICS is there are several different servers where you can
log on too should the lag be bad. The main site (AFICS) ics.onenet.net 5000
has players from all around the world and is populated at all times. The
Euro-server (EFICS) at anemone.daimi.aau.dk 5000 has players from all over
Europe, but attendance at times may be low, due to European countries
falling in similar time-zones. The british server (BICS) holly.warwick.ac.uk
5000 is a new-comer to chess. This server is populated only at certain times,
but again can offer lag free chess for English residents. The dutch server
(DICS) dds.hactik.nl 5000 is still in the process of organisation and at times
may have people on. The advantage of this in the future is distributed ratings
that is you only need an account on one server, and ratings results from other
servers can affect adjust rating. Perhaps it is also possible to mix the sites
that is certain opponents on your site you can play lag free chess with, but
it could also send the moves to other sites to play chess against their
opponents.
If you need any more help on differences and features, just log on to either
server. The admins there will help you to find the information you might
need in your article.
DAV
Admin and coder at FICS ics.onenet.net 5000
Benjamin J. Tilly
er...@panix.com (Eric Berlin) writes:
> As I posted before, I'm writing about Chess for my September column in
> Internet World magazine. Having now retrieved the correct software, and
> having now verified that it works equally well on both the paying and free
> chess servers, I have but one question:
>
> Why, then, would I go to the paid server? What does ICS offer that FICS
> does not? I have noticed, and attended, some of the "special events" on
> ICS. Is that enough? Is there more? Does FICS plan to offer similar events?
>
It offers several things.
--Examine mode: I learn *a lot* going over my games with my opponent.
--The database. Which I have found very useful...:-)
--Timestamp. Which I cannot use right now. :-( (They need to rewrite it
so that one copy of timestamp running on one UNIX machine can have
several players signed on to the same port. I have been told that if
that was available then they will run it at Dartmouth. If not, then
they are *not* about to let people just go about creating ports at
will...)
--More politeness in general.
However ICS is improving...
> I realize that there is a huge argument over just these very questions. I'm simply
> wondering if any answers have yet arisen.
>
> And, yes, a second writer is also covering this same story for the same magazine.
> He's writing a feature; I'm writing my gaming column. We'll be complementing each
> other, is my hope.
>
> Thanks for your input.
If you are at it, there are several things that I think would make
either better, and if one server establishes them then I know where I
will be. :-) (They would take less work on ICC, but in time either
could establish them.)
--An annotated game server. This could be set up similarly to Tomato on
ICC. What you would do is load up a game from the database that happens
to be annotated, contact the server, wait to get its attention, then
begin running through the game with it telling you the comments and
analysis that was provided about the position. It would take time to
develop a list of annotated games that was very large, but in time...
--An opening book. This could be set up similarly to the annotated game
server. It would take a lot of energy to get going, but again the
pay-off (particularly for amateur players such as myself) would be
really great.
And the last one (which does not directly matter to me so much) is to
try to reach out to casual players. For instance hold an electronic
chess tournament for highschool and elementary school chess clubs to
lure some novices into registering. This would then make it possible
for people who grow up in the "chess-playing hicks" to have electronic
access from an early point to opponents. (Until I found ICC I had never
had above a half-dozen opponents to play, most of whom I beat
consistently. I was (and still am)-: pretty bad by any serious
standard, but there was just no point in learning more when I did not
have a supply of people to apply it against...)
I really think that if this last change were to be implemented then a
lot of people who drop out of chess now would be likely to either stay
in or else become better than they are now. (I have a number of friends
in mind...)
Ben Tilly
aka "mathwhiz"
Joseph Harrelson
(Michael Cummings) wrote:
> In article <3qj3es$9...@news.panix.com>, Eric Berlin <er...@panix.com> wrote:
> >As I posted before, I'm writing about Chess for my September column in
> >Internet World magazine. Having now retrieved the correct software, and
> >having now verified that it works equally well on both the paying and free
> >chess servers, I have but one question:
> >
> >Why, then, would I go to the paid server? What does ICS offer that FICS
> >does not? I have noticed, and attended, some of the "special events" on
> >ICS. Is that enough? Is there more? Does FICS plan to offer similar
events?
I too use both FICS and ICC, and while I would prefer to stick with FICS,
here is why I continue to play on ICC as well:
Brass tacks: ICC has many functions FICS lacks. First and formost is
examine mode: one can play through any game in the history of any player,
and more importantly one can look over one's own games. FICS stores only
the last game that you played, so if you want to save a game, you better
mail it right away or it's lost. The game database can also be
interesting: the other day I plaed through an Anand/Kansky match. I've
also found that ICC is a better place to observe games. The GM, IM, and
FM variables in the gnotify list allow one to watch a top notch games from
the very first move (and I might be wrong, but it seems as if the upper
eschelons of ICC players has markedly increaced in numbers recently).
Finally, I am an alomst exclusively STC person, and I generally find it
harder to find 30-60 minute games on FICS. At this point, most STCers are
on ICC. However, once FICS gets up to par I could see most of this
changing, and when it does I will probably play there exclusively.
Joe
--
____________________________
Joseph Harrelson
j...@cruzio.com
William Smithers
Joseph Harrelson <j...@cruzio.com> wrote:
[SNIP] ...
>Finally, I am an alomst exclusively STC person, and I generally find it
>harder to find 30-60 minute games on FICS. At this point, most STCers are
>on ICC. However, once FICS gets up to par I could see most of this
>changing, and when it does I will probably play there exclusively.
>
==========================================================================
As the leader of THE STC BUNCH (a club of Internet online chess players
who prefer, or accept, the Slower Time Controls), I'd like to give my own
take on this part of fellow-club-member Joe Harrelson's experience.
In March of this year, when the free American Internet Chess Server
became the pay-for-play Internet Chess Club (ICC), THE STC BUNCH began to
offer membership to registrants of both ICC, and the newly revived Free
Internet Chess Server (FICS). (Since our Players' List can accomodate the
Standard Rating of only one server, a member must choose one or the other
as a "home" server, even if registered on both.)
Our club has existed for a year. Its membership, until March, 1995,
consisted entirely of AICS (now ICC) registrants.
In the past three months, the stats for our membership have become: ICC
- 67%; FICS - 33%. The dynamic here is that FICS players are joining us at
a rate of about 6 to 1 compared to ICC players. For example, of the 20
players who joined us in the last half of May, 17 were FICS players. By a
decided margin, most (but not all) of the switches of home server are from
ICC to FICS; and most of the "inactives" removed from our membership list
each month are, at least currently, ICC players.
My point is that this is a situation clearly in flux. How it will play
out in the future is unknown.
As part of my club activity, I log on to both FICS and ICC quite a few
times each day. I seem to observe more games using the Slower Time
Controls (30 - 120 minutes) taking place on FICS. And, despite the
present status of our statistics, as mentioned above, I actually seem to
encounter more STC'ers present there.
Joe has obviously cited his genuine experience; I just wanted to add my
own to the mix.
-- Bill Smithers
Don Fong
Benjamin J. Tilly <Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu> wrote:
>If you are at it, there are several things that I think would make
>either better, and if one server establishes them then I know where I
>will be. :-) (They would take less work on ICC, but in time either
>could establish them.)
>
>--An annotated game server.
>--An opening book.
[...]
these are great ideas, i hope the coders at both ICC and FICS
are paying attention!! there is no reason to limit ICS to playing
online games. the limited "games database" that is currently available
is but a shadow of what is possible. why not have a full chess database
built into the ICS?
imagine being able to access gigabytes of SHARED databases thru the
ICC. why should each of us have to buy new multi-gig drives, then
redundantly download everything, then run the same conversion utilities?
WE COULD HAVE A KILLER DATABASE ONLINE!!
imagine being able to query all the database files on the ics.onenet.net,
and pull up, say, the score of Tal-Tringov, Amsterdam 1964.
imagine stepping thru a game with "examine" mode then being able
to query this giant database. select all games where this position
occurred; show average results from this position. switch to examine
any stored game from this position.
imagine the power of CHESS ASSISTANT or BOOKUP available thru the net,
with the latest SHARED data.
this is basically the same idea as proposed by John Tamplin on the
WWW page at http://www.traveller.com/chess , but built into ICS instead
of WWW. the advantage of accessing thru ICS instead of WWW is, not having
to go thru the clunky NETSCAPE interface. some things just don't seem to
fit well into the WWW model. you could instead use ICS clients with
chess-specific features.
about the analysis server idea: why not also have specialized
computer opponents that will provide analysis? there are already
several strong computer opponents available on ICS. modify them
to accept special "tells", to make the program usable for analysis.
and didn't Steven J. Edwards say he was going to make his ending
tablebases available as a computer opponent on ICS? has this happened yet?
--- don fong
T. M. Cuffel
>As I posted before, I'm writing about Chess for my September column in
>Internet World magazine. Having now retrieved the correct software, and
>having now verified that it works equally well on both the paying and free
>chess servers, I have but one question:
>
>Why, then, would I go to the paid server? What does ICS offer that FICS
>does not? I have noticed, and attended, some of the "special events" on
>ICS. Is that enough? Is there more? Does FICS plan to offer similar events?
One issue is stability. At this point, no one can if either server is
going to last, but if one or the other is going to fold, it will be
for different reasons.
ICC is simple. If they don't make enough money, they close their doors.
Going back to a free server is unlikely. I don't think anyone will
donate resourses to a venture that was once and may again be commercial.
August 31, when free memberships run out, will be the critical day.
If most people leave, they'll lose the player base needed to attract
new players. If enough people stay, ICC will see a windfall from all
the members who previously weren't playing.
FICS has its own set of problems. Someone is donating the machines and
the net access to them. If that person has a change of heart or is no
longer in a position to do this, the server will have to move. I can't
say how likely this is, but off the top of my head, I can recall ICS
jumping to and from at least six different sites. Less government
funding and more commercial interest, finding new sites will be harder
than it has been.
But there is a more likely reason FICS will fold. True collaborative
efforts are rare--usually there is a small group of able, motivated
people, often only one, who act as the driving force that sustains
the project. When these people burn out or move on, their replacements
are often less talented, less eager, and most importantly, less familiar
with how things worked, and are unable to keep things going.
These problems are present, but I am not familiar enough with the
inner workings of either server to offer an opinion on how serious
they are. An important difference is ICC's ability to overcome will
be pretty clear one way of the other come September, whereas FICS
could run into trouble tommorow, next year, or never.
--
Beware the advice of successful people;
They do not seek company.
- Dogbert
Sean D Ramones
the mix. > > -- Bill Smithers > > How do I get started. I really would
like to test out my skills. Does any one remember the
basiks....@ucr.edu>
Steven J. Edwards
> about the analysis server idea: why not also have specialized
>computer opponents that will provide analysis? there are already
>several strong computer opponents available on ICS. modify them
>to accept special "tells", to make the program usable for analysis.
> and didn't Steven J. Edwards say he was going to make his ending
>tablebases available as a computer opponent on ICS? has this happened yet?
Administrators of chess servers, free and commercial, are welcome to
use the tablebase data Spector has generated. It's at ics.onenet.net
in the pub/chess/TB directory; the test harness source file tbt.c has
all the information needed to do the coding. Alas, I do not have the
time to code up an opponent; but I can assist anyone who wants to do
so.
Gosh, I don't even have time to PLAY on an chess server!
-- Steven (s...@mv.mv.com)
Tim Mirabile
>Administrators of chess servers, free and commercial, are welcome to
>use the tablebase data Spector has generated. It's at ics.onenet.net
>in the pub/chess/TB directory; the test harness source file tbt.c has
>all the information needed to do the coding. Alas, I do not have the
>time to code up an opponent; but I can assist anyone who wants to do
>so.
I wanted to download these tablebases, a little at a time, since I only
have 14,400 bps, but it seems that not all of the tablebase files are there
anymore. Is there an alternate site that is more complete?
--
Tim
Steven J. Edwards
I don't know of any. However, I can re-upload any missing ones upon
request. I would just like to see them stay there so that others may
access them.
-- Steven (s...@mv.mv.com)