ElKitch wrote: And if you are a 2000-ish player: you may beat everyone with a queen, but what rating can you handle with pawn-odds?
I'd like to think I could take out an FM and draw a weak GM with pawn odds. Maybe.
Q: which ratings would you beat if you recieve an extra P/K/B/R/Q?
Sort:
If it was my choice I'd take the f-pawn because that would be the most weakening. If the master gets to choose the pawn, that's a different question. I'm guessing they would go for a or h because it gives the open file in compensation.
Aug 10, 2012
0
#24
My FIDE rating is 1470, and I believe I could a least draw with Carslen at Q odds and beat an average GM with rook odds. Icould beat an Fm with N/B odds (I drew NM without odds) and with pawn odds... depends on the position!!
Aug 10, 2012
0
#25
Even a weak player should be able to beat anybody with queen odds. A queen is just so, so much. I wouldn't even have to try hard to beat Carlsen + Houdini giving me queen odds. I would wipe them off the board 10 times out of 10. I think that wafflemaster, ohsnapzbra, AdvLegitimate are selling themselves short. Anyone but a patzer/beginner should be able to win up a full queen.
My current rating:1331(USCF)
Estimated rating that I expect to beat with +1 ...
Pawn:1450
Knight:1600
Bisshop:1600
Rook:1700
Queen: Wait, you mean K+Q vs K? Garry Kasparov!
Heh, I just lost to houdini with queen odds :/
@FirebrandX: dont worry to much about the practical side of this question. Estimates will do, and one could even set an estimate range for a piece (like Wafflemaster did).
FirebrandX wrote:
It depends on the pawn. The master could consider it a gambit if it speeds up developement. Most games they win are on tactics, rather than winning by a single pawn (though that does sometimes happen).
?!
Aug 12, 2012
0
#29
Standard OTB Rating: 1856
OTB + Pawn: 2100
OTB + Knight: 2600
OTB + Bishop: 2600
OTB + Rook: 2650
OTB + Queen: 2800
Wow, I guess a rook isn't worth as much as I thought it was... 
just for fun after seeing this post i played vs houdini (depth 17 cause i don't have all day) with queen odds and eventually won, but im sure if i tried the same down a rook or minor piece i'd miss some tactic and end up giving it right back soon enough ;)
Aug 12, 2012
0
#33
I got a winning position playing CM9000's engine in 1|0 taking piece odds (I had mate in six and had won its queen) , but then threw away my queen and (still winning) lost on time. It still had 46 seconds left. I played a few other piece odds games in 1|0 and drew a couple of them after blundering in an endgame or three-fold repetition.
Bullet is pretty hard for me to play consistently, so I think it would definitely be possible for me to beat a strong engine taking piece odds in a longer time control.
My current rating: No federation rating
Estimated rating that I expect to beat with +1 at G90...
Pawn: 2000 (?)
Knight/bishop: 2600 human or any engine
Rook: God (~5000)
Queen: Chuck Norris (infinity)
I know a 1550 guy who beat a 700 player without his queen. So you're all exaggerating.
Aug 12, 2012
0
#35
Grandmaster3141 wrote:
I know a 1550 guy who beat a 700 player without his queen. So you're all exaggerating.
I can beat my dad without my queen, but there's just no way anyone could beat me without a queen once in 100 games at a reasonable time control. A queen means much more to an intermediate-strong player than a weak beginner.
Nice username, by the way.
browni3141 wrote:
Even a weak player should be able to beat anybody with queen odds. A queen is just so, so much. I wouldn't even have to try hard to beat Carlsen + Houdini giving me queen odds. I would wipe them off the board 10 times out of 10. I think that wafflemaster, ohsnapzbra, AdvLegitimate are selling themselves short. Anyone but a patzer/beginner should be able to win up a full queen.
Houdini (or any engine) I would beat 10 out of 10 times easily. It's the strong humans who know they're losing that would make it difficult. I would probably expect to win, but I wouldn't be shocked if I couldn't go 10 for 10.
Also I guess I'm thinking blitz... because obviously in tournament length games or CC a queen is just too much. Probably should have mentioned that 
Aug 12, 2012
0
#37
waffllemaster wrote:
browni3141 wrote:
Even a weak player should be able to beat anybody with queen odds. A queen is just so, so much. I wouldn't even have to try hard to beat Carlsen + Houdini giving me queen odds. I would wipe them off the board 10 times out of 10. I think that wafflemaster, ohsnapzbra, AdvLegitimate are selling themselves short. Anyone but a patzer/beginner should be able to win up a full queen.
Houdini (or any engine) I would beat 10 out of 10 times easily. It's the strong humans who know they're losing that would make it difficult. I would probably expect to win, but I wouldn't be shocked if I couldn't go 10 for 10.
Also I guess I'm thinking blitz... because obviously in tournament length games or CC a queen is just too much. Probably should have mentioned that
That's a good point, and I'd be much less confident that I could win 10/10 in blitz against a human. Even in blitz though it will take more than one or two big blunders to lose when starting up a full queen.
Well, a GM isn't looking to grind you down in an odds game, it's mate or nothing baby, they'll just throw all their pieces at you, and if you're not mated they'll resign :p
So I guess what I'm saying is, while you're right it would still take a number of blunders, they're not looking to equalize material, just looking for 1 big blunder!
I think he means it's odd you say most games GMs win are with tactics (and sometimes by winning a single pawn)... I found your comment odd too.
Most games I've seen GMs win by building up a better and better position. Sure the very very end there's a tactic, but that's just the formality, what caused them to lose happens much earlier.
And I've never seens a GM game where one side resigns because they're down a pawn. Maybe you just weren't clear with what you were trying to say (?)
Approximate:
Pawn: 1480
K/B: 1600
R: 1850
Q: 2300