Yoshirools wrote:
A GM, aware that his queen is missing, would set traps and lure your king into the open.
A patzer, aware that he was up a queen against a GM, would not bite.
Could I beat a GM with a queen handicap
Sort:
Apr 28, 2011
0
#63
Yoshirools wrote:
A GM, aware that his queen is missing, would set traps and lure your king into the open.
with what queen?
haha Steiner that is quite ridicolous. Especially when the queen gets in play; nothing can escape it's grasp well =)
aah so thats how capturing/check works in your "idea" =P
Maybe time trouble but I can also understand how someone might clutch if they were that close to beating a GM!
I think it's pretty certain a game played against a GM with those odds wouldn't look anything like that game. The computer seemed oblivious that every exchange of pieces lessened its chances of winning.
Yes, the computer probably is oblivious to the fact it should be playing for a win instead of awaiting the inevitable
Fezzik wrote:
Nope, not time trouble. He won the queen fairly early in the game.
He lost due to the extreme pressure of the situation, just as Rob McIlroy did in that recent golf tournament.
I think you mean RORY McIlroy?!?
'That recent golf tournament' was The Masters.
McIlroy did fold on the final day of the tournament, but one game of chess and an entire golf tournament are in no way comparable. Best to leave out these kind of comparisons.
Who is to say what happened in the example game given here? All we have are the moves as they were officially recorded. There is no insight as to clock time, mental state of the competitors, previous results in the tournament to that point, etc. etc. etc. In other words, no context. Just because the queen was won 'early in the game' does not mean there was no time trouble involved.
I would be curious to hear what the competitors in this game have to say about their efforts. Rory McIlroy spoke to the press after his final-round collapse. Again, comparing those two events simply isn't fair.
This is the second game of mine I post and this sort of thing happens all the time
Wow, that sucks heinzie.
no, it is what keeps chess alive
Apr 28, 2011
0
#72
I think that the outcome could go two seperate ways. If you are a weak player or blunder real bad, the grandmaster might win. Most probably, though, you should win.
Fezzik wrote:
Sorry. Yes, Rory, not Rob.
I did speak to both contestants after the tnmt. The game even made it to Chess Life!
Jim Burden was a National Master at the time of this game. I don't want to put words into his mouth. He was naturally embarrassed by his failure to win the game, but also rather pleased with the fact that he won a queen against Christiansen. He also agreed that this experience would make him a stronger player in the future.
Years later, Christiansen said that he felt bad for his opponent, not for winning the game. He has used the game as an example of never giving up. (It may even appear in one of his books, I'm not sure.)
Thanks for providing some context. Were you there to witness the game?
Bullet 1 : 0 I wasn't in time trouble but it WAS bullet :D
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=124214052
=((
Also, im such a fail whale, over checked myself + I missed the checkmate :D
http://www.chess.com/livechess/game.html?id=124222150
But he was losing anyway -.-
And the opening thats not my usual opening, was just playing randomly. :D
Houdini 3 Pro won vs the Bouquet 1.5 with exchange odds (a1 for b8), In 3 minute blitz game - of course the low time control may indirectly lead to blunders. This just show the strenght of H3 as it was capable of going from -1.00 at the start to victory.
khpa21 wrote:
I can't fathom losing to anybody giving me a queen handicap, and my rating's ~1700
I'm pretty confident that I can beat a 600 with a queen handicap.
A GM, aware that his queen is missing, would set traps and lure your king into the open.