Talk:Handicap (chess)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Quawn odds

I removed the following contribution by IP:

• Quawn odds: stronger player cannot promote pawns. Pawns that move to the final rank cannot be captured.

I didn't find any references to this on Internet and encyclopedia on chess varaint. Please provide respectable sources before adding it again! Andreas Kaufmann 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

"Material" handicap

The section on material handicap has two handicap which are move advantages. I think that it's better to move those two into a section named "move" handicap or the other handicaps section, as it's not really material. Fetofs ^Hello! 21:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

You are right, but I wanted to preserve order of handicaps like it was played in 19th century. Also move + pawn handicap would belong to two categories. So, instead of spliting the section, I renamed it. Andreas Kaufmann 11:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Move + time vs. draw odds

This is sometimes used in single-game blitz playoffs but it is not exactly "odds" chess since the chances are supposed to be close to equal. (Controversy continues as to exactly what time odds produce equal chances.) Who gets to decide who plays which side is determined by tiebreak or by lot. Sadly, I wasn't able to find a definitive web reference. --Wfaxon 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Standard odds in terms of chess rating differences

I saw an article on this once that used statistics from 19th-century games. Can anyone find it? One would think that since having the first move (playing white) is worth approximately 50 Elo points, and a pawn is worth about three tempi (moves), one could approximately calculate all the standard odds, but I recall that the actual numbers were significantly different.

For the Wikipedia audience one would also need to convert any rating difference into a winning percentage difference.

Andrew Soltis wrote a book that might be relevant: Rethinking the Chess Pieces. --Wfaxon 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Two moves

I remember reading somewhere someone mentioning the possibility of giving one player the odds of being able to, at any one point of their choice during the game, make two consecutive moves. I can't for the life of me recall who discussed this (but I'm fairly sure it was a top-level chess celebrity) or where I read it. I think it was a hypothetical situation, but it might of course have been used as an actual handicap. Does anyone know more about this? -- Jao (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Just stumbled across it while browsing a book out of my shelf. It's from Stewart Reuben's Chess Openings — Your Choice!, page 7 discussing tempo: "If you were to be given the odds of being able to make two consecutive moves at any single stage of the game, at your behest, this would be much better than being given a queen start." As it is said in passing, without sources or analysis, it probably doesn't belong here. Still an intriguing remark though. -- Jao (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

There is even a chess variant based on this idea, see Monster chess. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 20:39, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

An interesting remark...

...by IM Larry Kaufman:

[...] The problem is that the Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so.[1] GregorB (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Important article

This is an important article. I didn't know it existed! I would always call a game like this "odds" rather than "handicap". I'm going to see if there are appropriate redirects and, it not, create them. Krakatoa (talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

would like

One thing I would like to see in this article, if it is known, is how the various handicaps relate to differences in ratings. For instance, does a handicap of a minor piece compensate for a 400 point difference in rating? One pawn for a 100 point difference? etc. Bubba73 (talk), 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

I've used GregorB's comment above to do this for knight odds. I think there was a recent Chess Life article about pawn and move odds (talking about how Rybka and the like can give GM's pawn and move successfully). I don't remember if it talked about the rating equivalence. Krakatoa (talk) 20:26, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, yes. I didn't think about how it depends on the level and not just the difference. Bubba73 (talk), 22:47, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Pawn and three moves

Are there any sources for this:

• Pawn and three moves: Weaker player plays the first three moves, and the black pawn on f7 is removed from the board.

I doubt that something like this is really played, since white wins immediately: 1. e3 2. Bd3 3. Qh5+ g6 4. Bxg6 hxg6 5. Qxg6 checkmate. Andreas Kaufmann (talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I added my source for this: your "relative" Larry Kaufman (different spelling, I know), who notes that White's moves must be restricted so as not to allow the mate you mention. Krakatoa (talk) 21:13, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Also, an important qualification not mentioned in the article is that the extra moves must be within the odds-receiver's first four ranks -- so 3.Qh5+ violates that. See [2] Krakatoa (talk) 19:25, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The reason why there is no "pawn and four moves", incidentally, is that even with this proviso White can instantly win the e-pawn and force a queen trade with 1.e3 2.Bd3 3.Qg4 4.Nc3. (Without the last move Black could hold the pawn by running with the king to c6, although that also looks a bit dicey.) Double sharp (talk) 16:14, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

P.S. This instantwin is mentioned by Kaufman, which is where I learned of it from. Double sharp (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Assessment to B-class

I have raised the quality assessment of this article to B-class because it meets the six B-class criteria:

1. It is suitably referenced: there is a couple of "citation needed" tag, but nothing that important for B-class.
2. It reasonably covers the topic: I see no major section missing (glad to see there is a "History" one!)
3. It has a defined structure: sections are clearly defined.
4. It is reasonably well written: no problem on this side.
5. It contains supporting material: there are diagrams all along, which is good. A photo somewhere would be an improvement.
6. It is appropriately accessible: obviously this is foremost intended to chess players, but the Lead is sufficiently accessible to be read by anyone with a suitable brain.

SyG (talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Eckart-Tarrasch game

The game moves currently in the article are clearly impossible: 12. Bc6+ Kb6 13. Qd3 Rxd4 14. Qb7+ (from d3) Kd6 (from b6). The diagram purporting to be the position after 13... Rxd4 is also wrong, since it shows the queen and king already on b7 and d6.

On another subject, is it necessary for the sentence beginning "There are many kinds of such handicaps, such as material odds, extra moves..." to be in the article twice? 91.107.147.158 (talk) 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

In this case I think it is OK to have that duplication since one is in the lead section (which summarizes the whole topic) and the other is in the body. I'll look into the problem with the game. - Fixed, I think. Bubba73 ^{(You talking to me?)}, 02:09, 23 January 2010 (UTC)