Interesting, it reminds me of this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(chess)
Centaur vs Material Odds
Sort:
Mar 28, 2017
0
#2
Mar 28, 2017
0
#3
how about one VG_ pointed me at recently... https://www.chess.com/tournament/knights-and-queens
Why do you say the games should be played as rapid? I guess human play gets worse, so the computer has an even bigger advantage?
My opinion is for human vs. computer, if the position comes from a real chess game (not composed) then I think the best strategy for the computer side is to always follow the computer's move.
Engines are very strong. Taking away material is still a real chess position and will not confuse the engine.
I did previously propose an engine vs. human game for psychologic but no one took my offer. See the last comment on this post.
I still wonder who would win (computer or human) in psychologic. Unfortunately I don't have time to add more games to my matches right now, but if playing "computer side", I might have time to try that (1 move each day or so). Let me know if you'd like to try.
Mar 28, 2017
0
#5
"rapid" here means a time control that is live (daily) and not fast enough to be called blitz. So 15 mins or 30 mins each side would be rapid. Slow would be 45+45 which is sometimes but rarely played here.
It's a matter of what people would like to play, however I guess a time control like 15|10 would suit most players for this kind of game.
I've come up (in discussions in the Cheating Forum actually) on a "variant" that allows one player to play using software assistance, whilst the other player gets material odds.
The games would have to be played unrated (unless chess.com sets up a special variant for it) and the games should be "marked" as engine use.
If the player wins, they have to play the next game with less material odds. If they lose they get more.
The challenge is therefore to be able to win with less material odds. And for the centaur (engine user) to work out the best strategy to beat their human opponent. (My theory is that the best engine move isn't always the best strategy as it assumes perfect play by the opponent, where was you would be looking for a line where your opponent is more likely to slip up, so a complex tactical position).
I think these games should ideally be played as "rapid".
Anybody think it's a good idea? Anybody interested?