Could you beat Morphy if he gave you knight odds?

You do not need to have beaten any GMs to be strong enough to beat Morphy at knight odds.

You misunderstand how chess works.

The best move in the position leaves the evaluation unchanged. Only bad moves alter the evaluation. I.e. it's not up to Morphy to change the eval. only his opponent can.

Chess may seem a bit random, but stronger players can actually maintain the evaluation for many moves even if the position is difficult. At knight odds, it's not a difficult position. An IM would have no trouble maintaining a winning position.

I suppose the difference between knight and bishop odds is mainly about B+B vs B being more challenging than N+N vs N.

Did anyone in this thread mention yet that some years ago there actually has been a 2 pawns odds match between Garry Kasparov and the ~2250 player Terence Chapman? Now I'm sorry to disappoint, but Morphy compared to Kasparov is like Björn Borg with his wooden racket compared to Novak Dvokovic, and 2 pawns do not come close to the value of a full knight, especially in an odds game.

Kasparov lost one game, drew one, and won two, which counts up to a very narrow 2,5-1,5 victory.

To answer the question: No matter who or what you are: You cannot give knight odds against any half-decent chess player.

At the start of the game, a bishop is stronger than a knight.

This means I can beat Carlsen with queen odds!

ponz111 wrote:

At the start of the game, a bishop is stronger than a knight.

I object. Knight have more room for maneuvering than bishop in the opening. Bishop and better in the endgame because of open diagonals.

FM Rumo: yes, it has been mentioned, but Chapman was a strong player and was trained by a GM about plans specifically related to the positions he would have to face. OP's statement is still a boutade to me.

The value of each piece changes often. The Bishop is slightly better than the Knight in the opening position. This is why, fairly often, if you have a  white Knight on f3 and a black Bishop on g4 and White plays h3, the Bishop usually moves to h5 rather than to play Bishop takes Knight.

Yes, Chapman prepared for the match. But do you think Kasparov didn't? Noone in the history of chess ever came even close to being as good as Kasparov on the field of opening preparation, and you can be sure that for these very specific opening positions Kasparov did invest a lot of work. And as I said, that was just two pawns. A knight is a completely different issue. Being a knight down you just cannot generate much play/control/pressure from the very beginning. How will you ever be able to create a mating attack or win big material under such circumstances.

I know that some people think that world champions are something like mythical creatures on the field of chess. But they're not, without a knight all they can do is try for some swindle. It doesn't even have to be a knight, get a chess legend out of his comfort zone and he suddenly may not look very legendary at all.

Ponz: That is done due to the long-term consequences of the bishop pair and the bishop. Itself. But knights are better in the opening.

I wonder if they didn't give bishop odds because it was an additional handicap. Not only are you down a piece, but that color complex is weaker. A knight is just a piece.

They do not give bishop odds as a bishop is stronger than a knight.

There are other reasons they do not give bishop odds.

Yeah, FM Rumo, I've already say it's possible to beat Morphy with knight odds if you are a strong player, but is beyond the ability of the average amateur IMHO.

In the opening a bishop can often pin a knight.

However in the opening it is rare that a knight can fork a bishop.

In the opening the bishop is stronger than the knight by about 1/5th of a pawn.

In the opening two bishops are often stronger than bishop and knight.

Define amateur.

This is to Pulp.

Aficionado.