Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

[Precy Mckoy]

I would like to start survey and hear your responses about ideas how to make chess very competitive.

I am a natural Class player (you can call me an Amateur) who stands no chance or very slim chance of even drawing or winning against a Titled Master. Given this scenario, I would like to issue a challenge! It’s up to you to decide whether you as an amateur or a master will accept it? Let’s all play in the Open Section however given as obvious mismatch; I would like to offer a compensation for the disadvantage. The odds will be shown below. Quite unusual, but it happened in the old days of the great masters and quite competitive.

Standard tournament play time control:
40 moves in 2 hours (120 minutes) and 1 hour SD.

With my rating of more than 200 points difference, can a master player offer me this odd?
1) A material disadvantage of 1 pawn? Or
2) A time disadvantage of 25% of the time control, 40 moves in 90 minutes and 45 minutes SD?

With my rating of more than 400 points difference, can a master offer me this odd?
1) A material disadvantage of 2 pawns? Or
2) A time disadvantage of 50% of the time control, 40 moves in 60 minutes and 30 minutes SD?

With my rating of more than 600 points difference, can a master offer me this odd?
1) A material disadvantage of 3 pawns or 1 minor piece? Or
2) A time disadvantage of 75% of the time control, 40 moves in 30 minutes and 15 minutes SD?

Would you agree if you as an Amateur or a Master accept this challenge?


Same as in Track in Field, I could not compete with a 100 meter sprint champion but if he can give me an odd of just running 50 meters away from the finish line, I may stand a chance!

Same as in Basketball, I could not play with a NBA superstar but if he can give me an odd of dribbling and shooting the ball with one hand, I may stand a chance?
;)

[Gary Ruben]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

A players biggest handicap is usually his own lousy play. Still, if you want to handicap you could use another method.

The rating system has odds of a player winning according to the difference in the ratings. The bigger the rating difference the bigger the probability of the higher rated player winning.

Take the mean rating of the players who normally play in an event. Then set the entry fee based on this. So if your entry fee is 60 dollars and the mean rating is 1800, an 1800 player pays 60 dollars. A 1000 player might only pay 20 dollars fee. A 2600 player might pay 180 dollars entry fee. Then they all play for only 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. No classes.

It has the advantage of no advanced pairing systems because the stronger players will want to play weaker players.

Probably there wouldn't be many real strong players enter the event unless it becomes the only type of prize money chess tournament in town.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

Same as in Basketball, I could not play with a NBA superstar but if he can give me an odd of dribbling and shooting the ball with one hand, I may stand a chance?
;)

Umm. You'd still have no chance, I've seen competitions between NBA average players vs. a Superstar. The superstar was only allowed to shoot one-handed and could only attempt 3 pointers, nothing inside the arc, and still won something like 100-30.

Same in chess with your odds... Give me someone rated 1100 and give them four times my amount of time and take away 3 pawns or a knight or something from me, and in most cases it still wouldn't be even close. Sure it improves their odds, but not that much.

If you don't believe me, try it in Fritz yourself, take away even a Rook and see how you do against Fritz on max strength with the different times.

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

Umm. You'd still have no chance, I've seen competitions between NBA average players vs. a Superstar. The superstar was only allowed to shoot one-handed and could only attempt 3 pointers, nothing inside the arc, and still won something like 100-30.

Same in chess with your odds... Give me someone rated 1100 and give them four times my amount of time and take away 3 pawns or a knight or something from me, and in most cases it still wouldn't be even close. Sure it improves their odds, but not that much.

If you don't believe me, try it in Fritz yourself, take away even a Rook and see how you do against Fritz on max strength with the different times.

I will agree with that scenario!

How about giving you that odd at your current rating of 1756 against let's see IM Lawrence Day? Do you accept the challenge?

[Zeljko Kitich]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

A GM or IM can play several players at the same time, 5, 10, 15, 20 or more & beat all of them or maybe draw or lose one or two. What makes you think anything you can do on a one on one basis (short of the truly unsporting) could slow a GM or IM down enough to give you an equal chance?

It would be like starting a race with the amateur half way or closer to the finish line, what would that prove?

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

A GM or IM can play several players at the same time, 5, 10, 15, 20 or more & beat all of them or maybe draw or lose one or two. What makes you think anything you can do on a one on one basis (short of the truly unsporting) could slow a GM or IM down enough to give you an equal chance?

It would be like starting a race with the amateur half way or closer to the finish line, what would that prove?

Simultaneous games are played without time control that's why a master can beat almost anyone on even terms but with a winding clock time down to think about, a master can make a bad move or "blunder" which he will not normally commit in a normal situation. That's the effect when a player has a disadvantage of time. As for the advantage of material, if you can play until the endgame (playing solid and good moves in the opening and middlegame), the material advantage will become decisive in the endgame. Those are your odds of beating a master.;)

[Lucas Davies]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

If it was a tournament game, no reason why I would. If I'm playing in a tournament, I want to win, so it's not like I'm going to give myself a disadvantage and possibly lose points to players whom I'd normally beat.

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

I will agree with that scenario!

How about giving you that odd at your current rating of 1756 against let's see IM Lawrence Day? Do you accept the challenge?

Maybe Lawrence will chime in here, but I doubt my chances would be all that good even with those odds. Give me a piece, a pawn and a move, then maybe :D

And my high school coach used incremental odds games to help train the players. So I'm well aware of the theories of trading down to a won endgame from a starting advantage. It doesn't always go according to plan, and my coach was rated about 1700. He would still sometimes beat me with knight-odds even when I was in the 1500's.

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

A players biggest handicap is usually his own lousy play. Still, if you want to handicap you could use another method.

The rating system has odds of a player winning according to the difference in the ratings. The bigger the rating difference the bigger the probability of the higher rated player winning.

Take the mean rating of the players who normally play in an event. Then set the entry fee based on this. So if your entry fee is 60 dollars and the mean rating is 1800, an 1800 player pays 60 dollars. A 1000 player might only pay 20 dollars fee. A 2600 player might pay 180 dollars entry fee. Then they all play for only 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. No classes.

It has the advantage of no advanced pairing systems because the stronger players will want to play weaker players.

Probably there wouldn't be many real strong players enter the event unless it becomes the only type of prize money chess tournament in town.

I'm not sure what the point of all this is, but I wonder if anyone has tried this in a match between two players with widely different ratings: the lower ranked player starts the game with pieces in the usual starting position. The higher ranked player, instead of giving odds of a pawn or piece, must start his or her pieces in a Fischer Random chess starting position.

This means the lower ranked player can develop and coordinate his/her pieces pretty much normally, while the higher ranked player must take more time to think right from the beginning. The lower ranked player SHOULD be able to gain an early positional and time advantage. Thus the challenge for the higher ranked player would be to win from a positional and time disadvantage. I would think this would be great tactical training, because the best way to overcome a positional disadvantage is to introduce complex tactics.

Has anyone ever tried this in a multi-game match? Would be interesting to know the results.

[John Brown]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

I'd call you a complaining Carp.

[Bob Armstrong]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

Hi Paul:

I don't see how the lower-rated player has any advantage; in fact I think the higher-ranked player has the advantage.

You say the lower ranked player " can develop and coordinate his/her pieces pretty much normally ". I don't see it that way. Because the opponent's pieces are set up " random ", the lower-ranked player has no opening theory to draw on in developing and coordinating his/her pieces. So if the two players are just matching raw talent in the opening, because of its strangeness, then the higher-rated player has a huge advantage.

I'd like to hear other opinions - interesting point Paul raises.

Bob

[Christopher Mallon]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

That's pretty much what I thought when I read it. The higher-rated player will know the tactics to use against a normal setup and be able to coordinate their pieces fairly quickly, while the lower rated one will have to invent strategies from scratch to attack a weird formation.

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

I would definitely agree with Bob Armstrong's comments about getting an advantage in a randomly generated starting positions (Chess960). The master usually knew where to put his pieces in optimal squares, once he got his pieces optimally posted, he can use his better knowledge in positional evaluations giving him decisive advantage in the process. When opponents have similar close or similar ratings, it could be very challenging with both players faced with unfamiliar starting positions without theories to rely on and they depend more on their chess skills. However, where their is a significant difference in ratings, it still favors the stronger opponent. Chess 960 tournaments will be very competitive in class tournaments where opponents will be playing within 200 rating points but not in the Open Section. It will be an interesting tournament if it will introduced in Canada. Chess960 starting positions can be generated from Chess Clock like DGT960 and Chronos Chess Clock II as far as i knew.:)

[Precy Mckoy]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

Umm. You'd still have no chance, I've seen competitions between NBA average players vs. a Superstar. The superstar was only allowed to shoot one-handed and could only attempt 3 pointers, nothing inside the arc, and still won something like 100-30.

Same in chess with your odds... Give me someone rated 1100 and give them four times my amount of time and take away 3 pawns or a knight or something from me, and in most cases it still wouldn't be even close. Sure it improves their odds, but not that much.

If you don't believe me, try it in Fritz yourself, take away even a Rook and see how you do against Fritz on max strength with the different times.

Chris,
I'm sorry to let you know that your suggested Fritz 11 chess playing program had lost twice with a Rook odd with the White and Black Pieces.

How about giving an unusual odd for the 1100 player with a "Super Queen"?
Never heard of a "Super Queen" odd? A "Super Queen" has the added ability to move like a knight. Do you still dare to accept the challenge? How about giving you that odd against a GM? Do you accept the challenge? Let know your honest decision?;)

[Paul Bonham]

Re: Giving a Chance to Everyone – for the Sake of Competitive Chess!

That's pretty much what I thought when I read it. The higher-rated player will know the tactics to use against a normal setup and be able to coordinate their pieces fairly quickly, while the lower rated one will have to invent strategies from scratch to attack a weird formation.

First of all, I should have added that the lower-ranked player be at least 1700 or 1800 rating, so that s/he knows something about opening theory. I would agree with Bob's and Chris' points if the lower-ranked player didn't know much about openings. But if both players have considerable opening knowledge, then I still think the lower-ranked player would have an easier time in the opening phase. S/he wouldn't be able to play memorized lines, obviously, but s/he would have an easier time setting up a "coiled spring" type of position. Part of the reason I think this is that higher-ranked players, with some exceptions, tend to play their openings without too much thought, because they know them so well. They really don't start thinking (again, some exceptions) until their opponent varies from the strongest lines, which the Master has generally memorized.

But this hypothesis can only be tested by experiment.

I would like to suggest that two closely-ranked players who play each other regularly try this experiment: play a match of say 8 or 10 or 12 games where in each game, one of them always starts with a normal chess starting position, and the other always starts with a different Fischer Random starting position (that cannot be the usual starting position). No two games can have the same Fischer Random starting position. I suspect that the player with the standard starting position will edge out the other player. I suppose this could also be tried using computer opponents, i.e. Fritz vs Fritz where all else is equal. But computers don't have the understanding of openings that humans do, so I think the human experiment is more pertinent.

It would be great if someone could try this and report back the results. Perhaps Bob and Chris will be proved correct.