Sigh....What is this?

Apples and oranges. That has absolutely nothing to do with anything here.

Sometimes the term are used interchangeably.  The term "Odds" in chess dates back at least to the 18th century and probaby earlier. It was commonly used throughout the 19th century,  even though late in 1800s you can read about handicap tournaments.  Int the 20th century writers spoke of giving odds.  The 2001 Kasparov-Chapman game was touted as an Odds match, not a handicap match. The same is true that the 2007 Rybka vs. Ehlvest (and later many others) match(es) were called Odds matches.  Maybe the origin had something to do with chess being percieved as a games of chance?  I really have no idea, but it might be fun to try to figure out.

I liked your article on cap matches BG. Where they would actually mark the piece, if it had to be the checkmating piece (or pawn, lol). I had never heard of those, and that would be extremely difficult, and take great skill to accomplish that feat.

thats premoving, not automoving.

Most people consider Capped 0dds as greater than Queen Odds. Beleive it or not, the Pion Coiffé game played by Staunton was criticized by some at the time for having taken too long. Those people felt Staunton should have found a faster way to mate with the capped pawn.

Wait... they're two different things???

and CrimsonIKnight7 ? Thank you for acknowledging me....I feel included now.... ! OK everyone - as you were saying ?....

Um... why hasn't anyone asked the OP to show the 2 games he's talking about? That would be very helpful.

Well no, it was pointed out that Kasparov refers to pawns as pieces.  You said it was due to translation error or using the terminology incorrectly, however that is not correct.  He uses it specifically in certain circumstances.  Scotrf mentioned advancing pawns and I linked to a documentary where he specifically says that pawns involved in an active attack or defense are pieces and that he disagrees with others on the topic.  He also points to passive pieces on the wrong side of the board as nothing.  According to Kasparaov, activity determines if something is a piece and its value, not how it can legally move.  He had pawns that were worth as much as minor pieces and a knight that was an octopus worth more than a rook.

You are only partly right.  If you watch the videos you will see him trade a piece for a defending pawn and call the pawn a piece.  He explains why.  Of course it is based on activity.  He is huge on activity and will value active pawns over inactive pieces, and active knights over inactive rooks.  Watch the documentary for his analysis on the octopus (last segment I think).  Of course at the start of the game things are different, but once his attack starts, only the pieces including pawns involved in the attack and defense matter.

Why don't you share your chess with us?

Pawns aint worth nothing, if the king is checkmated.

Is there any links about Apples and oranges? Not to be sarcastic.

Thta's not a definitive description of pawn and pieces. I think he messed up pawns with pieces. It is still a pawn even if it involves in an attack or worths more than pieces.

The value of pieces and pawns is only for counting purposes. Now, a pair of 2 worths more than a single Ace. We don't say a single 2 + a single 2 but a pair of 2.

He is not messing up.  He just has a different view of it, and considering he may be the greatest player ever, his opinion should be considered.  Just watch the documentary when you have time.  It is clear he is calling pawns pieces.  When he evaluates if an attack will work, he counts attackers and defenders.  Everything involved counts as one, pawns, rooks, queens, knights, and bishops.  If attackers outnumber defenders, he thinks the attack should work if you do it right.

If attackers outnumber defenders, he thinks the attack should work if you do it right.

Considering the other side doesn't have an attack. If both sides attack, only one will succeed. Both sides have attackers outnumber defenders.

I'm sure Kasparov understood that.

Just watch the movie.  It is amazing to see him explain his games.  It will all be clear if you watch it.  The last one is the best.

Yeah they are really interesting videos.

PTTD, he is strictly counting a chessmen's value based, on activity in any given position, which I don't disagree with that per se.

Where I do disagree, is him calling a pawn a different piece. Such as a knight, bishop, queen, or even king  (description of what a piece actually is). They are all separate types of pieces. Chessmen, or dare I say, chess pieces, as a whole encompasses all pieces, without moves, rules, or even values, except monetary on what you pay for the set.

However each individual piece whether its the pawn/s, knight/s, bishop/s, queen, or king, has its own rules, and moves, that governs its actions within a game.

Garry may be the best player of all time, but that doesn't make him right in this regard. By calling a pawn a piece. Its too general, and can too easily be misunderstood, especially by beginners, regardless if its value he gives it is more than an actual piece like a knight, etc.

So therefore by taking an important pawn while it may win you a game by producing checkmate, its still not the king. The pawn will never move like the other pieces totally, and can never be a king, until it is actually promoted, excluding kingship. No other piece can become a pawn in a literal sense.

Value is really a separate subject. Of course that pawn maybe worth more than a queen, if it is all that can stop a queen from checkmating the king. However it is still a pawn, acts, and behaves as one until promotion. Value won't change that fact.

Also Indian, of course you are included, you don't have to thank me, but your welcome, I hope you feel welcome here, and that you are always treated with respect, and diginity, as everyone deserves. Good luck all.