I would say a computer will always try to make the technically best move. A human player, aware of his huge handicap, would try to set up a lot of traps and hope for you to blunder. So I do think a GM might perform better at this task than an engine.
Still, with a queen handicap, one could probably even beat a Carlsen.
Queen odds, just simplify, GG?
From wikipedia:
Grandmaster Larry Kaufman wrote the following about the Elo rating equivalence of giving knight odds:[64]
[T]he 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.
Kaufman has written that Kasparov could give pawn and move odds to a low grandmaster (2500 FIDE rating) and be slightly favored, and would have even chances at knight odds against a player with a FIDE rating of 2115.[
I can't fathom losing to anybody giving me a queen handicap, and my rating's ~1700
A Queen is probably worth about 900 rating points so figure you would need to be around 1600 USCF to be equal to a 2500 GM. I Believe having white is about a 50 point advantage and each pawn about 100 points.
The Kaufman system seems very accurate and intuitive.
I think it would also depend a lot on the time controls; In blitz you'd be more likely to blunder, but in a long game you'd be pretty solid.
A Queen is probably worth about 900 rating points so figure you would need to be around 1600 USCF to be equal to a 2500 GM. I Believe having white is about a 50 point advantage and each pawn about 100 points.
it's worth 600 elo so playing a 2000 engine with a queen handicapp is like playing a 1600 computer
I think Kauffman is probably spot on.
The higher you get on the Elo scale, the more relevant material becomes.
I might be a decent 1600 OTB, do I think Anand would beat me with a Queen handicap? I'd fancy that the answer is no.
Would a 2100 beat a 1100 being a queen down? I think its more likely.
A 1500 would almost certainly beat a 500 being a queen down. I think my dog is able to play at the 500 level, lol.
Chessmaster claims that their engine is in the upper 2900's, but the actual engine's name is "King" and there are many, many stronger ones.
Chessmaster claims that their engine is in the upper 2900's, but the actual engine's name is "King" and there are many, many stronger ones.
2700's at best (TKing is the best version) but something like chessmaster on chessmaster 10th edition is 2500 at best to be completely honest every personality is weaker than what it's rating suggest.
Chessmaster claims that their engine is in the upper 2900's, but the actual engine's name is "King" and there are many, many stronger ones.
2700's at best (TKing is the best version) but something like chessmaster on chessmaster 10th edition is 2500 at best to be completely honest every personality is weaker than what it's rating suggest.
I know! When I would play vs an 1800 personality, he/she would hang pieces 5 times a game
Chessmaster 102 I think 600 USCF rating points is a little low for a Queen. What is your source?
Couldn't a GM conjure up several opening/middlegame attacks that do not use the queen and quite easily destroy any <2000 player?
I'm not sure at queen odds, but in a conversation with GM-elect Shankland he believes Kasparov(and by that logic, guys like Anand and Carlsen) would destroy him utterly at knight odds.
I'd venture that Queen+move odds is probably going to make the game difficult, but I still think the positional knowledge and tactical view top grandmasters have would compensate. Actually, I think their tactics are so far superior that being <2000 FIDE they would at worst draw.
You would be unlucky if perfect play got a draw off you with a Queen handicap, although theoretical perfect play may not necessarily be the best play against you - maybe it would be more effective to try to set various traps. Even so, I can't see a GM beating you.
A queen handicap is a ridiculous advantage; however playing with as much as an extra rook in the corner, or piece, is probably not as easy as it seems.
Well, I take this from my experience from chess engines; I in fact think they would be much more resourceful and punishing than a grandmaster; they would be able to find the tactical opportunities, which is the main aim of the guy playing against odds.
@goldendog: interesting. Kasparov is just that good!
Shankland is just being polite...wasn't he gonna retire, and now he is crushing everyone and got 3 GM norms quickly like it was nothing? Go Shank.
"In the Dutch book 'Meneer' Caissa (Mister Caissa) by Max Euwe and the sports journalist Bob
Spaak, Euwe tells a story about Emanuel Lasker. One day in 1924, on the ship that was bringinhim from Europe to New York for the great tournament that he was going to win, Lasker was
strolling in the smoking room and paused at a table where an unknown gentleman was studyina chess position.
“Do you also play chess?” asked the man. “Once every few years,” Lasker replied, more or lestruthfully, as since his match against Capablanca in 1921 he had played only one serious
tournament. The man proposed to play a game and as he considered himself a good player and
his opponent was clearly inexperienced, he proposed to give queen odds. If that would prove tomuch, they could try another game with rook odds, and so on until the odds were such that thewould play with even chances.
Lasker accepted and given queen odds he cleverly managed to lose two games. Then he said
that during these games he had gotten the distinct impression that it might be an advantage to
play without the queen, because the king, having an empty square next to him, had more
freedom of movement. Would he be allowed to play another game, giving queen odds himselfAt first his opponent remonstrated that this was a silly proposal, but as he was a pleasant man
who didn't want to be rude to a fellow chessplayer, eventually he gave in. The next two games
were won by Lasker, playing without his queen, which left his opponent in bewilderment abouthe nature of the game of chess, which was only resolved when later he found Lasker's name othe passenger's list."
"After Alekhine had taken the championship title from Capablanca, Capa apparently spent quite a bit of his spare time hanging out in a specific cafe in Paris. Friends, acquaintances, and others would often drop by, participating in games and libations with the former, charismatic, champion. One day, while Capa was having coffee and reading a newspaper, a stranger stopped at his table, motioned at the chess set and indicated he would like to play if Capa was interested. Capa's face lit up, he folded the newspaper away, reached for the board and proceeded to pocket his own queen. The opponent (who apparently had no idea who Capablanca was) reacted with slight anger. "Hey! You don't know me! I might beat you!", he said.
Capablanca, smiling gently, said quietly, "Sir, if you could beat me, I would know you.""
Could I beat a GM with a queen handicap? I tried it against chessmaster 10th edition in a 10 minute game and I won. Is a GM better than a chess engine?