Chess at odds

A hint of a discussion scented the atmosphere of this blog.  I felt that such a discussion might be better served in an open forum where the infusion of ideas are a bit more aromatic.  The talk focused on odds in chess how much, if any, odds a strong master could offer a weaker player in serious play.

Back in April 2001, Kasparov played Terry Chapman, who had been the under-14 British champion nd was rated in the lower 2000s, a 4-game match at odds of 2 pawns and a time odds of 60 mins for Karparov vs 90 mins for Chapman. The pawn removed varied in each game. Karparov, arguably the greatest chess player of all time, won the match with the unimpressive score of 2½ - 1½.    Maybe modern chess is too scientific for a great master to offer odds to a much weaker master.

It wasn't always so.  Morphy won a match against James Thompson, who regarded himself Morphy's equal, giving Knight odds.  Lowenthal called this "the most surprising of all the achievements of the American master and undoubtedly one of the greatest feats of chess skill ever performed."   But odds were not only given regularly in the 19th century, it was the accepted measure of relative skill.  Players were deems Rook-players or Knight-players, based on their skill level.  Books were written on different types of odds-giving and some players, Paulsen among them, wondered seriously whether certain odds might even be advantageous to the odds-giver.

Member Greenlaser has assured me that coffee-style odds-giving isn't dead in certain venues, and offered some very interesting examples, but in serious play, it seems that odds-giving isn't very effective.  So the question remains whether this is because odds-giving isn't effective anymore, or for some other reason.

I'd love to hear everyone's ideas.

I think it's an interesting way of evening things out, but getting the right odds would be tricky. Aside from the obvious problem of possibly giving too great or little advantage through the pieces not used, there is also the fact that at lower levels a single piece makes almost no difference due to the instance of blunders, and at the higher levels even a single pawn could prove decisive, even when there is a large discrepancy in ratings.

I have considered playing odds games at my club simply to learn about situations where I'm down in material, but I'm already the smallest fish in that pond so it would just be making my position even more hopeless.

Traditionally, odds were offered by the giver who generally put up stakes. The giver really wanted to give smaller odds to assure a win, but the taker would generally want greater odds. Negotiations would follow and some agreement would be reached.  If the giver proved too successful, then greater odds would be negotiated . . . and eventually a happy medium should occur. 

In cases of more serious chess, the giver might demand odds because even an accidental loss at too great of odds would lower the giver's position in the chess world.  Giving the wrong odds could have grave implications.  If I gave odds of 2 pawns to player X, but learned that player Y beat him at 1 pawn odds, player Y might have the ammunition to not play me unless I accepted 1 pawn odds from him.  It was a very complex hierarchy system. 

When I started with chess, I was a teenager playing against a club player who was probably 35 years older than me. He always spotted me a rook. That is, until the first time I checkmated him. 

I think it's an interesting idea.  Is it possible to set up a game on Chess.com with an "odds" set-up?

I don't think so, unfortunately.

After it was related to him that Lisa Lane considered Fischer "probably the greatest chess player alive" Fischer responded in typical Fischer fashion...

"That statement is accurate, but Lisa Lane really wouldn't be in a position to know. They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat."

from the 1962 Harper's interview of Bobby Fischer by Ralph Ginsberg

While Lisa Lane was not up to the level of modern women champions, she was probably around 1900-2000 elo.

Tal's retort was that Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight.

Maybe the powers-that-be can come up with something?

I wipeout my dad almost every time, but he refuses to make the game more equal by using odds.

Dan Heisman recently told me the following story about Fischer, women players, and his famous boast about giving Knight odds.  The story was told to him by IM Donald Byrne who was present, I believe on the occassion.  Byrne, who frequently captained the US olympic team in the 60s, and who captained the Penn State chess team that Dan played on, claimed the anecdote was factual.

Russian GM and legendary player Paul Keres, who had a pretty good sense of humor, approached Bobby during an international tournament and said, "Bobby, I've heard of your offer to play any woman at Knight odds.  Well my money is on the Woman's World Champion, Nona Gaprindashvili [she held the title from 1962 to 1978, the year in which she became the first woman to win the GM (not WGM) title].  Any amount of money you want to bet.  What are your conditions?"

Bobby, ever paranoid, said, "well, she can't have any help from men preparing for the the match, she can't analyze any adjourned games with men...and she'll have to take a sex test to prove she's not a man in disguise."

"No problem," said Keres, "she's staying here at the same hotel as the rest of us.  We'll just arrange for her to bunk in with you and you can verify all the conditions yourself!"  Bobby turned beet red and Keres and his posse, convulsed in laughter, walked off.  

The match was never arranged, but my money would have been on Nona.

 Well, if the Russian authorities were as confident as Tal why didnt they set up a match with the ladies world champion. There was no effort on the part of the Russian Federation to make Bobby eat his words. Perhaps they were afraid he was right.

 Here's the rest of the story---When Fischer made his statement Elisabeth Bykova was the women's champion. She was a 49 year old grandmother. Fischer could have beat her in his sleep. The Russians knew this and thats why no challenge was sent to Fischer.

I personally never liked being given odds by stronger players because I found it much more humiliating to lose when the opponent had started out without his queenside rook.

I also think that giving odds is for players who like open games and go for an allout attack from move one. Those who like to take it slow and rather accumulate small positional advantages that convert into a won endgame, or those who like to let their opponents attack first and wait for their chance to counterattack probably are at a much bigger disadvantage when giving even small odds.  

At the amateur level I've occasionally offered odds to players just for fun not for stakes to make the game more even if they had little chance of winning otherwise. Most players refused the odds, which indicates a lack of firm grounding in reality as far as I'm concerned - I wouldn't have any trouble accepting time odds from an IM or GM - or anyone else who could consistently clobber me in blitz chess, speed chess or at any other TL.

Well if nothing else we got that great anecdote from raul72 about the oafish Fischer being totally embarassed by Keres, and rightfully so.

All in all, a very odd forum topic - pun intended, sorry I couldn't help myself!

NimzoRoy --  "Well if nothing else we got that great anecdote from raul72 about the oafish Fischer being totally embarassed by Keres, and rightfully so."

*AHEM...*  

"if the Russian authorities were as confident as Tal . . ."

Don't know as they were.  They certainly weren't as glib or fun-loving.

"I also think that giving odds is for players who like open games"

Good observation! 
Maybe that's even the key. When offering odds, is it easier to force an open game?

Perhaps to generalise a bit, the key is the different style of play in the 19th century, i.e. more gambit-based, in contrast to the more conservative style of modern chess where relatively weak players (compared to their opponents) can still win fairly comfortably when ahead material with good 'technique'?

I tend to think... maybe, maybe not.  I think in general, when discussing such things, that the abilities and knowledge of "average" modern players is overrated, while the skills of "average" past players are underrated.  As you go up the hierarchy of chess, the finer points of strategy and theory becomes more important and the differences between players of old and modern players becomes far more telling. Calculating and tactical skills seemed to have remained fairly constant over the years.  But I do think that today's experts-on-up could do more when given odds from a master than players of long ago.   Often strong players don't win when playing in simuls (which would be time odds) against GMs, so there is something to be said for different types of odds.

Besides the fact that we don't need odds to establish a chess hierarchy - we have ratings - playing at odds seems both interesting and beneficial.

I wonder if anyone has ever matched computers up with one giving, one receiving small odds.  I would be curious to learn how certain pawn odds would fare.

That would certainly be interesting, especially as engines can be tweaked by very small amounts. You may even be able to come up with a rough formula for haw many rating points would be worth a certain level of odds.