Talk:Handicap (chess)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Chess handicap/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: SilkTork (talk · contribs) 19:16, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

• Review closed as not listed. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 12:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I'll start reading over the next few days and then begin to make comments. I am normally a slow reviewer - if that is likely to be a problem, please let me know as soon as possible. I tend to directly do copy-editing and minor improvements as I'm reading the article rather than list them here; if there is a lot of copy-editing to be done I may suggest getting a copy-editor (on the basis that a fresh set of eyes is helpful). Anything more significant than minor improvements I will raise here. I see the reviewer's role as collaborative and collegiate, so I welcome discussion regarding interpretation of the criteria. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time}

Tick box

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose is clear and concise, without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. Has an appropriate reference section:

   B. Citation to reliable sources where necessary:

   C. No original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   B. Focused:

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:

   B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

Comments on GA criteria

Pass

• Images are illustrative diagrams which comply with guidelines, and have appropriate captions. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:18, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Stable. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:19, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Article has reference section. Currently the article names sources, and then transcribes long quotes from the source. It would be more appropriate and useful to take advantage of legally scanned copies, such as those provided on Google Books. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:30, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Prose is clear and readable. Will do any tidying up needed as I review. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• NPOV. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:53, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• No Original Research detected. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:20, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Article is sourced and has appropriate inline citing. Tags have now been dealt with. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 18:21, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Query

• A large proportion of the article is given over to WP:Embedded lists. Is this necessary? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• The Rating equivalent section is mainly one long quote from one person. Are there other sources available to give others views on the relationship between the Elo rating system and handicapping? SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:35, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• Broad coverage. I will do some more background reading to check on coverage. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Fail

• Lead doesn't meet WP:Lead. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• There are citation needed tags. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
• The Illustrative games section is rather long; and its value is anyway dubious and would need some discussion. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:15, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Hold

• On hold for the standard seven days to allow for above issues to be addressed or discussed. I'm always open to extending that time as long as progress or communication is being made. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Just a note that all significant contributors have been notified. We are halfway through the seven days and no work has been done on the issues raised (edits made on the article have not addressed the issues), and no contact made here or on my talkpage. This is heading towards a fail unless somebody takes the matter in hand. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 14:26, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I will close this as not listed tomorrow unless there is some attempt made to work on the issues, or someone contacts me to tell me they are willing to do the work needed. SilkTork ^{✔Tea time} 11:49, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Closed

Closed as not listed. SilkTork' ^{✔Tea time} 12:42, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Historical Question

Just wondering ...

In capped pawn or ringed piece odds, did the designated chessman have to deliver the mating check directly, or was a discovered check uncovered by the move of the designated chessman sufficient? The legality of this alternative should make the odds slightly less overepowering, though notr much, I'd suspect. Also, it would permit a ringed king who could only deliver mate via discovery. WHPratt (talk) 14:27, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Castling rights

Have castling rights (odd-giver forfeits right to castle to either side) ever bee a significant part of odds? It may seem a good thing in practice mode or coaching mode or to teach advantage and disadvantages of castling. Thieh (talk) 18:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

It'd be most interesting to test that via a computer chess engine, to determine what the disadvantage amounts to over a significant number of games between equal "players." Someone probably already has eveluated it. I'd guess a good bit less than a pawn, but just how much? WHPratt (talk) 17:21, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

It's probably a little bit more valuable than pawn promotion to knight. Just half-kidding. A very rough "estimate" perhaps can be achieved "instantly" with a custom FEN setting in almost any computer chess program, the "custom" aspect being only "no castling rights" to one side, and then looking just at the estimated advantage even before the first move. I even feel like installing one just to check this useless piece of knowledge. The value will likely change for black and white. A more "accurate" assessment would possibly require some less trivial hacking on the engines, so that the adversary "knows" of this handicap, and could exploit it, sure that the opponent won't castle. Out of this situation it probably will vary too much to be anything other than a meaningless value. Sometimes castling is the best move, sometimes it's a blunder, unlike a piece or a pawn, whose values are far less variable.

Apparently denying White's castling rights exactly nullifies the opening advantage, according to Stockfish 14.1. But Lc0 sees a disadvantage for White already. Double sharp (talk) 10:02, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

This kind of thing is discussed in Kaufman's Chess Board Options. I'll see if I can work it in. Double sharp (talk) 05:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Nakamura, 2014

Nakamura played a series of games against a handicaped (one pawn less) Stockfish, but arguably with his own handicap of being human and playing for 10 hours straight, even though with the aid/compensation of an older version of Rybka, ~200 ELO points inferior to Stockfish. "Stockfish beats Nakamura". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 179.99.178.197 (talk) 04:43, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

"From this perspective, a game beginning from a "lost" position becomes less interesting, even distasteful."

I doubt pawn-and-move is a lost position for Black objectively. One can certainly hang on a pawn down and escape with a draw. Besides, though Black's king is exposed (the f-pawn is missing), (s)he can make a virtue out of this by quickly castling kingside and using the king's rook on the already half-open f-file. I would expect that with perfect play, Black could salvage a draw out of pawn-and-move.

Knight odds I am basically certain is lost for Black objectively, and I think pawn-and-two-moves may be so if White begins 1.e4 2.d4○, grabbing tons of space, central control, and preparing for lots of development. But this complaint doesn't really work for pawn-and-move, I think. Double sharp (talk) 16:10, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I notice there are lower handicaps. I would surely call odds of the move not really odds at all, as any series of games between two players will have each player getting as many Blacks as Whites, and the initial position is certainly =. Two moves is probably +/= if White begins 1.e4 2.d4○. Pawn and move I would class as +/−, and the higher handicaps +− (White wins objectively). But the quoted complaint cannot apply to pawn and move and below, I think. Double sharp (talk) 16:15, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

By the way, how can exchange odds be a higher level than rook and knight? Double sharp (talk) 16:21, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a better reason to be against odds is the fact that they let you simply try to force as many exchanges as possible, until the stronger side has no pieces left. Double sharp (talk) 16:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Has anyone managed to suggest some kind of odds-giving that would effectively neutralize the advantage of White having the first move, more-or-less exactly? It seems to me that such a concept could be very popular. Not that it would replace the conventional game, but might be employed for the occasional tiebreak. I know that they now use something with varying times on the clock, but I'm talking about something positional and very subtle. Say that Black begins with both rook pawns on the third rank, or say that White cannot play a Pawn double-step on the first move (only). Now, even those ideas are probably insufficient or too extreme, but, use your imagination! WHPratt (talk) 19:53, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

The last suggestion probably won't work, as 1.Nf3 and 1.g3 should not harm White's first-move advantage too badly judging from the stats at chessgames.com. Double sharp (talk) 12:24, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

@WHPratt: Stockfish 14.1 claims that your proposed a6/h6 handicap is too large and provides -0.30 advantage to Black. Admittedly analysing opening positions with engines is iffy, but intuitively that seems plausible, since so many forceful openings for White require getting a bishop (or maybe a knight) to N5. Or, to adapt a quote by Botvinnik, "the Najdorf is so strong that you cannot let your opponent play it with an extra tempo". (Really he said it about the Sicilian, to explain why he thought it was bad to answer 1.c4 with 1...e5.) :D Double sharp (talk) 11:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Stockfish 14.1 says: Two moves 1.e4 2.d4 (and then Black to move) is +0.94, which looks pretty grim. But Kaufman in Chess Board Options says it's really about +0.6 and not won yet, backing the latter statement up with empirical results. Pawn and move (f7) is +2.82, so I was completely wrong. And pawn (f2) is −1.56. Double sharp (talk) 09:55, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Handicap (chess). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071026233735/http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_quotes_96.htm to http://www.bobby-fischer.net/bobby_fischer_quotes_96.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://home.comcast.net/~danheisman/Articles/evaluation_of_material_imbalance.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:38, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Pawn and four moves

Not explicitly stated by Kaufman (whose assessment of this handicap I added to the article), but using the brain prosthesis widely known as Stockfish 11 to supplement my poor skills: 1.e3 2.Bd3 3.Qg4 4.Nc3 is the problem with pawn and four moves handicap. Now White threatens mate in 2 by 5.Qg6+, and there are not many moves that defend against that:

• 4...Nh6 is met by 5.Bxh7! Nf7 6.Bg6 e5 and Black is left with a rotten position with that awkward knight on f7.
• 4...d6 invites 5.Qh5+ Kd7 6.Bf5+ e6 7.Qf7+ Qe7 8.Bxe6+ Kd8 9.Qf3 Qxe6 10.Qxf8+ Qe8 11.Qxg7 Ne7 and Black again has a rotten position, three pawns down: I guess this is the line that Kaufman considers.
• 4...e6 may provide the best practical chances, although that is my WP:OR with a brain prosthesis (as Tim Krabbé has memorably put it). After 5.Qh5+ Ke7 6.Nf3 Nf6 7.Qh4 d6 8.e4 Nc6 9.Bc4 Ke8 10.0-0 Be7 11.d4, Black can't castle (which would otherwise look like a great move at the moment), but his position at least looks less like a trainwreck than in the other two lines, and given the odds that must be a psychological advantage against a White player who went straight for the kill with these not-quite-normal opening moves rather than something principled like 1.e4 2.d4 3.Nf3 4.Bc4. ^_^ Double sharp (talk) 22:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)

Why the f-pawn?

If the stronger player remove one of his pawn, but the removed pawn is the a-pawn, or the b-pawn, or the c-pawn, …, what will be the result? 211.23.210.36 (talk) 21:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I believe that losing any other pawn might give back some of the odds advantage to the stronger player, permitting him or her to develop an attack faster than in a conventional game. Removing other pawns opens up diagonals and more useful files. The f-pawn was probably designated for odds-giving to give the biggest advantage to the weaker side. The f-pawn is almost useless on offense, but important for defense (its absence exposes the king). WHPratt (talk) 03:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

WHPratt is completely correct. Larry Kaufman remarks in Chess Board Options: A Memoir of Players, Games and Engines: "The point is that the removal of any other pawn offers at least some compensation in the form of an immediately useful open file for the rook or diagonal for bishop or queen." Double sharp (talk) 11:15, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Stockfish 14.1 says:

• Remove a7: +1.67
• Remove b7: +2.20
• Remove c7: +2.06
• Remove d7: +2.09
• Remove e7: +2.39
• Remove f7: +2.82
• Remove g7: +2.54
• Remove h7: +1.52

Double sharp (talk) 11:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

And:

• Remove a2: −0.82
• Remove b2: −1.54
• Remove c2: −1.54
• Remove d2: −1.25
• Remove e2: −1.16
• Remove f2: −1.56
• Remove g2: −1.66
• Remove h2: −0.49

Double sharp (talk) 11:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Anecdote

I'm not putting this anecdote on this article's front page because I don't have a source.

Alekhine, in his latter days, shabbily clad, was studying some chess game on a portable set while waiting for his train somewhere in Spain or Portugal. Another passenger arrives:

“Oh, you're a chess player; could we play together?
— Certainly”, says Alekhine, and he sets up the initial position without the Qd1.
“B-b-but, you don't know me, and you're giving me queen odds?
— If I couldn't”, says Alekhine, “I would know you.”

Tonymec (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Other handicaps

In case anyone wondered: knight, pawn, and move (f7) is about the same as rook odds, per a forum post by Kaufman. Double sharp (talk) 04:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)