I'm guessing I could beat most GM's if they had no queen, and possibly with no rook as well. I'm guessing I'd lose most games up a bishop / knight, but would win a few.
Do you think you could beat a grandmaster if he/she had no queen?
Sort:
neatgreatfire wrote:
I'm guessing I could beat most GM's if they had no queen, and possibly with no rook as well. I'm guessing I'd lose most games up a bishop / knight, but would win a few.
How many missing pawns would they need for you to win
davidkimchi wrote:
neatgreatfire wrote:
I'm guessing I could beat most GM's if they had no queen, and possibly with no rook as well. I'm guessing I'd lose most games up a bishop / knight, but would win a few.
How many missing pawns would they need for you to win
Probably about 5 or 6
Praveen_bhat97 wrote:
I believe in my understanding of the game! So, I would say I can beat GMs if they had no queen in a blitz / rapid game. In classical format, it's gonna be really challenging
It'd be easier to beat a GM in classical without a queen, anything can happen in blitz!
I think those with over 2000 rating have a chance with a queen extra. But for lower ranks it would still be impossible
Hikaru Nakamura reached 2500 in his Botez gambit speedrun, so I guess you need to be above 2500 blitz on this website in order to beat him consistently if he does the botez gambit.
Praveen_bhat97 wrote:
Malishious wrote:
Praveen_bhat97 wrote:
I believe in my understanding of the game! So, I would say I can beat GMs if they had no queen in a blitz / rapid game. In classical format, it's gonna be really challenging
It'd be easier to beat a GM in classical without a queen, anything can happen in blitz!
It's your perspective. I feel they will come up with the most precise move every single time. My understanding won't be that efficient like a GM in such scenario, so the possibility of committing a blunder would be relatively high in my case. In blitz, he would be having the pressure of not having the major piece, so I feel it would be really challenging for him to come up with the best move under time pressure. My task is just to simplify the position as quick as possible.
There is a French youtuber who was 1400 on this website and he drew (or even won, I don't remember) MVL in one of the games in which MVL played without a queen. They were playing classical. There is no way that would have happened in blitz. In blitz he would stand no chance.
@1
"What Elo player could beat a grandmaster if they had no queen?" ++ 1500
"How about no rook" ++ 1800
"or no bishop, or knight?" ++ 2000
https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html
GM = 2500 elo
Q = 10 P = 10 * 100 elo @ 1500 elo = 1000 + 1500 = 2500 elo
R = 5 P = 5 * 150 elo @ 1800 elo = 1800 + 750 = 2550 elo
B = N = 3 P = 3 * 200 elo @ 2000 elo = 2000 + 600 = 2600 elo
tygxc wrote:
@1
"What Elo player could beat a grandmaster if they had no queen?" ++ 1500
"How about no rook" ++ 1800
"or no bishop, or knight?" ++ 2000
https://wismuth.com/elo/calculator.html
GM = 2500 elo
Q = 10 P = 10 * 100 elo @ 1500 elo = 1000 + 1500 = 2500 elo
R = 5 P = 5 * 150 elo @ 1800 elo = 1800 + 750 = 2550 elo
B = N = 3 P = 3 * 200 elo @ 2000 elo = 2000 + 600 = 2600 elo
The most interesting thing about tygxc is that he always treats suspicious random sources like that was a holy scripture or something. That Elo calculator is dubious at best, more likely total nonsense.
@15
"That Elo calculator is dubious at best"
++ François Labelle is a respected mathematician.
He even explains his whole reasoning in the link I provided.
That is neither suspicious, random, dubious, or nonsense.
davidkimchi wrote:
What Elo player could beat a grandmaster if they had no queen?
How about no rook,, or no bishop, or knight?
imo, i definitely wont be able to beat a grandmaster even with a queen or rook(s) up. best i could do is force a draw because im way below their level. there was once i faced a 2000+ rating guy and best i could do was force a draw. so probably someone at FM and above, or someone rated 2000+ could do it
Aug 31, 2022
0
#16
According to the Elo win probability math, a 2500 rated player would be competitive against the following ratings with the following odds:
2500 vs 1842 = 3.00 pawn odds (value of a bishop or knight)
2500 vs 1560 = 5.00 pawn odds (value of a rook)
2500 vs 1160 = 9.00 pawn odds (value of a queen)
In reality though, two humans, I suspect the GM will still likely swindle more wins vs a true 50-50 prediction.
In blitz, I'd favour the GM significantly more. Aman Hambleton and Hikaru Nakamura have both done speed runs where they sac their queens and were able to climb rather high despite the odds in blitz and bullet time controls. (These were not true queen odds as most often the sac would be a queen for a piece in an otherwise good position - so maybe the exchange forfeited 5 pawns of eval vs a true 9) but in any event, they climbed to beyond master strength in blitz with this handicap!
Another example was Carlsen v IM Trent - they played 9 unrated blitz games where Trent had rook odds. Trent lost 4 of the 9 games. Of course, all games were objectively winning for Trent, but he lost on time four times due to Carlsen complicating the position and being able to flag him.
Statistically, a 2882 vs a 2400 = 1.4 pawn odds. So in a longer game, of course Trent would have beaten Carlsen in probably all 9 games, but in Blitz - anything can happen!
Aug 31, 2022
0
#17
If I couldn’t beat Stockfish from the starting position up a clean queen, I might as well quit playing chess.
B1ZMARK wrote:
If I couldn’t beat Stockfish from the starting position up a clean queen, I might as well quit playing chess.
*STONKfish
Aug 31, 2022
0
#19
dude0812 wrote:
Hikaru Nakamura reached 2500 in his Botez gambit speedrun, so I guess you need to be above 2500 blitz on this website in order to beat him consistently if he does the botez gambit.
In this case it's slightly different because he'd trade the queen for a minor piece. It'd be a bigger disadvantage starting with no queen at all.
Aug 31, 2022
0
#20
Kraig wrote:
According to the Elo win probability math, a 2500 rated player would be competitive against the following ratings with the following odds:
2500 vs 1842 = 3.00 pawn odds (value of a bishop or knight)
2500 vs 1560 = 5.00 pawn odds (value of a rook)
2500 vs 1160 = 9.00 pawn odds (value of a queen)
In reality though, two humans, I suspect the GM will still likely swindle more wins vs a true 50-50 prediction.
In blitz, I'd favour the GM significantly more. Aman Hambleton and Hikaru Nakamura have both done speed runs where they sac their queens and were able to climb rather high despite the odds in blitz and bullet time controls. (These were not true queen odds as most often the sac would be a queen for a piece in an otherwise good position - so maybe the exchange forfeited 5 pawns of eval vs a true 9) but in any event, they climbed to beyond master strength in blitz with this handicap!
Another example was Carlsen v IM Trent - they played 9 unrated blitz games where Trent had rook odds. Trent lost 4 of the 9 games. Of course, all games were objectively winning for Trent, but he lost on time four times due to Carlsen complicating the position and being able to flag him.
Statistically, a 2882 vs a 2400 = 1.4 pawn odds. So in a longer game, of course Trent would have beaten Carlsen in probably all 9 games, but in Blitz - anything can happen!
In my opinion, the problem with these calculations is they assume, for example, the 1100 player will manage to play good enough to hold such advantage against a GM / Super GM. When in reality it's very likely the 1100 will crack at the slightest pressure from a GM and hang a piece or rook, thus returning the advantage to a way far more skilled opponent.
What Elo player could beat a grandmaster if they had no queen?
How about no rook,, or no bishop, or knight?