Would a 2000 ELO player beat Kasparov if he had a piece advantage?

I know one 1800+ FIDE rated player who lost to 2200+ player having clear extra rook.

upd. It was 90+30 time control, without any time trouble.

In the 15 Heraklion open a 1900 blundered his queen against a 1600 and managed to win in 127(!!!!) moves

While I like his book, Kaufman a 2400 player would lose to at 1800 ELO player.  [giving knight odds]

Bowerick  I agree with you but would be more precise, I think a 10 game match would end up approximately  5 1/2  to  4 1/2 in favor of the side with an extra piece. 

I have just completed a FIDE rated tournament with an 2000+ performance rating.

I tend to see quite a bit, and I see that according to IM Pfren, I wouldn't be considered 'a mere woodpusher'. 

Well thanks for the compliment! However, I still consider my own game to be rather shaky, and with many lacunes in knowledge, understanding and board vision, not to mention attacking experience and knowledge of essential patterns. 

Therefore, I totally distrust my own chances, in beating anybody 2400 or up, with an extra piece, with any consistency. 

Maybe I would manage to, of course - but I would be genuinely surprised at the feat. 

Ponz, you might be giving players like me a bit too much respect :)

I (currently 1970 USCF) do think I'm capable of messing up advantages like an extra piece, especially under the pressure of playing a titled player. The way this would happen would probably be in the form of being conservative, and gradually making concessions (maybe make some bad trades, let him activate his pieces, establish outposts, find some targets, maybe even let him get a pawn back -- blunders too are quite possible when I'm under stress) until my advantage starts to get tricky to convert.

In other words, I really don't think it's a matter of just not blundering, at least not most of the time.

May depend on style / experience too.  I suspect the chances of a young player who relies on tactics woudln't be as good.  As Pfren said if you can play solidly then I'm guessing it's not a problem.

You would need to be more thoughtful than just "I'm going to play lots of solid moves and trade pieces." You still have to come up with ideas, sound plans, look out for opportunities, just as you would any other game. Any concession you make a titled player will latch onto and won't let go. Make a small oversight? That might just allow your opponent to get his rook on your 2nd rank, and now you have to find a way to proceed without giving up too many pawns (yes, you will need some concrete decision making/calculation for that). These kinds of things can pile up quickly.

This sounds like an interesting idea. I was always put-off by the idea of playing against an engine but I might give it a go with piece and time odds. I'm not sure how much it would help with improving one's positional game since the strategy would be to just trade down at every opportunity, I suppose. Hopefully it'll help with board vision and tactics at least though.

How do you guys fare at 960/shuffle after the initial few moves in terms of feeling the pieces on the board? Are you much slower or does it tend not to matter the stronger you are? Thanks.

Me vs a GM, sure, I would probably lose to a mating attack or draw the endgame.  Players better than me I'm not sure.

Here's me vs Houdini with 20 minutes each.  (A few times in the first 10 moves or so I hit space bar to force a move when it was taking 30 seconds to move ??).

Obviously a human player would set many more difficulties... even so I managed to lose a pawn.

The 2000 rated player would win without much difficulty.  Even with a 2 pawn advantage he would win.

I've seen some master vs 1500 piece odds games.  At least with this particular master his strategy was a do or die crazy assault on the king, sacrificing pieces everywhere.  He'd be dead dead lost until they blundered into mate.  In a positional game, sure, it shouldn't be hard I think.  But I'm not confident I would easily win against a desperation attack.

I understand 2000-2200 are much more solid tactically than a 1500... just pointing this out.

I believed that it's the computer (with exception to perhaps super GMs) that would set more problems simply by mercilessly punishing any inaccuracies made. Maybe it depends on the sort of position one gets, although a long time ago I got a losing position in an odds game despite the queens coming off very early. Well, I'm  really impressed you could beat the engine so handily, waffllemaster -- no allowing penetration to the 2nd rank in this one! You should play and get your OTB rating up lol.

So ponz, you think if I tried beating the engine with piece odds again I should ultimately succeed more often than I would fail?

Yes, Elubus, I would think you could severely beat an engine at piece odds.

However, you would have to wear your thinking cap!

Yeah, actually I was amazed at how tied up I felt.

Thanks.  I'm considering committing to 1 tournament a month or something like this :)

Wow, rook and your f pawn?  How did the other games go?

Once in a club game I was playing a 2200 player passing through.  On move 10 or so I just left my queen under attack... no compensation, no nothing... down a queen lol.  Do you think the 1600 was careless like that or do you think you'd beat him pretty easily in any case?

Honestly I kind of got sick of odds games a while ago, but maybe I should try it again some time because like I said, the last time I tried was a few years ago. Maybe things have changed. I just know that computers can often find resources and crazy ideas even when it seems like the position should be quiet, as long as there are open lines.

I tried a few rook odds games not so long ago and I know what you mean.  When tactics are around it can go bad really quickly for the human :)

I also blundered into a drawn endgame I remember.

I also got tired of it, not a realistic game.  Much rather blunder to a human ;)

Actually no.  And in any case common sense says it will be worth more or less depending on the weaker player.  e.g. knight odds between true beginners means almost nothing.

Haha, no way, someone run an engine match I want to see it.

Rybka played some knight odds matches against a 2300 player IIRC.  What I do remember is the master won that match.

Edit -- nvm -- FM Meyer won 4-0.