Could Kasparov spot a 2250 player knight odds?
Richard Reich
Richard Reich
Certified "A" fish per the USCF
Geoffrey P. Wyatt
: Put my money down on Gazza. 2250 just isn't that strong.
: Richard Reich
I think you are much closer to the mark than the crazies who predict
a whitewash in favor of the 2250. A GM (I forget who) once wrote
that a pawn is roughly equivalent to 200 rating points. A knight
is "worth" about 600 rating points.
Two decades of tournament play has taught me that this ratio is
probably close to right. For instance, if a USCF 2000 played a USCF
1400, the result should be about a standoff. (If anything, I would
favor the 2000 slightly.) Similarly, if Gary is 2850 USCF, he should
have equal chances against a 2250 USCF.
However, if I had to bet, I would take Gary because his style is perfect
for such a match. The 2250 would be hard pressed to fend off Kasparov's
awesome tactical strength and ability to complicate.
Geoff Wyatt
Portland, Oregon
--
geo...@teleport.COM Public Access User --- Not affiliated with TECHbooks
Public Access UNIX and Internet at (503) 220-1016 (2400-14400, N81)
I Am Sumo
according the the conversion should be about 2913 in the USCF system...
John Fernandez
AOL: I Am Sumo
Internet: iam...@aol.com
or: John_Fe...@nyo.com
Phone: 212-741-7090
BradleeJ
>for such a match. The 2250 would be hard pressed to fend off Kasparov's
>awesome tactical strength and ability to complicate.
On the other hand, trading down when one is ahead by a full piece should
be pretty easy to do. For example, pin the king's knight with your bishop
and snap it off. With each exchange the material imbalance (as a ratio)
grows and the ability to conjur up complications diminishes.
A 2250 player is considered of master strength? I think the stipulation
would have to be made that the player has stayed around 2250 for quite
some time and that they be an active player.
Regards.
-Bradlee
to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com
> Richard Reich (rmr...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
> : Put my money down on Gazza. 2250 just isn't that strong.
> : Richard Reich
>
> I think you are much closer to the mark than the crazies who predict
> a whitewash in favor of the 2250. A GM (I forget who) once wrote
> that a pawn is roughly equivalent to 200 rating points. A knight
> is "worth" about 600 rating points.
Some years ago GM Larry Christiansen dropped his queen to an A player
in a tournament game. I think he did get a knight for it but no other
compensation. The A player played very well but eventually Larry
won. This was considered a remarkable accomplishment. The game is
in an old Chess Life. So I'd guess that Kasparov would win, but be
in a precarious position at all times.
--
** to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com | (502) 493-3401 | All opinions my own **
Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself /
Before you accuse me, take a look at yourself /
You say I've been spending my money on other women /
You've been taking money from someone else.
_Before You Accuse Me_, E. McDaniel
Phil Humpherys
>
> Richard Reich (rmr...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
> : Put my money down on Gazza. 2250 just isn't that strong.
> : Richard Reich
>
>
Gary would ferocously attack and would at some point win a piece
where the game would then be equal, where Gary would then easily win.
--
Singin' in the sunshine and laughin' in the rain,
Phil Humpherys
hump...@bert.cs.byu.edu
-------------------------------------------------
For WWW, click <A HREF="http://bert.cs.byu.edu/~humphery/humphery.html">
here</a> for more information about me.
William Moran
>>However, if I had to bet, I would take Gary because his style is perfect
>>for such a match. The 2250 would be hard pressed to fend off Kasparov's
>>awesome tactical strength and ability to complicate.
>
>On the other hand, trading down when one is ahead by a full piece should
>be pretty easy to do. For example, pin the king's knight with your bishop
>and snap it off. With each exchange the material imbalance (as a ratio)
>grows and the ability to conjur up complications diminishes.
>
I think this is far too simplistic. If a hypothetical 2800+ strength player
knew he was going to be giving knight odds, he would look for openings
where it is very difficult for his opponent to exchange material. In a
similar way, bug house has an entirely different set of sound openings
from normal chess. I suspect that you would see some very strange opening
systems.
I once saw Max Dlugy giving 5-4 time odds and a knight against a 2150
player - and Dlugy was winning. I suspect that blitz favors the stronger
player quite heavily, but it was impressive anyway.
Bill Moran
E.L.K.S.
>Gary would ferocously attack and would at some point win a piece
>where the game would then be equal, where Gary would then easily win.
>
At the very last tournament I was at, I spotted a 2250 player
a knight and drew -- well, I blundered in the opening, hanging
my knight, then he blundered right back by not taking it off.
Me and bobby --
--
Somewhere in Rural Southeast Ohio ...
E-mail: jaco...@oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu
WWW: http://oucsace.cs.ohiou.edu/personal/jacobson.html
prin...@flubber.cc.utexas.edu
>Article: 40077 of rec.games.chess
>Newsgroups: rec.games.chess
>Subject: Re: Could Kasparov spot a 2250 player knight odds?
>Date: 30 Jan 1995 19:40:18 GMT
>
>Gary would ferocously attack and would at some point win a piece
>where the game would then be equal, where Gary would then easily win.
Hi,
It sounds like you are reading a novel or a history book.
Just one question what do U think that the 2250 player would do
while Gary ferocously attack? just sit and watch Gary's face?
Regards
Haldun
prin...@ccwf.cc.utexas.edu
BradleeJ
>where the game would then be equal, where Gary would then easily win.
It's much easier to ferociously attack when you have both of your knights.
:-) We make much about the 600 point difference but where does this place
the players in terms of percentage or of SD above the mean? Obviously
Kasparov is at the top, but is a 2250 player in the top 10%, top 5%? By
contrast a player rated 2250 playing against someone rate 1650 is a player
in the top 10% playing against someone in the middle %50? The qualitative
difference betweent the players is much greater.
Regards.
-Bradlee
MarkRRand
masters (and reportedly even to some GM's, though I never heard him claim
that). I witnessed about 30 games between Brooks and a near master (high
2100's) where Brooks won every single game, even though his victim had
known the format in advance and tried to prepare for it.
I actually think Kasparov would have a pretty easy time giving Knight odds
to a 2250 player.
Jeffrey Golds
<to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com> wrote:
>In article <3gfmgr$e...@linda.teleport.com>, geo...@teleport.com (Geoffrey P. Wyatt) writes:
>> Richard Reich (rmr...@facstaff.wisc.edu) wrote:
>> : Put my money down on Gazza. 2250 just isn't that strong.
>> : Richard Reich
>>
>> I think you are much closer to the mark than the crazies who predict
>> a whitewash in favor of the 2250. A GM (I forget who) once wrote
>> that a pawn is roughly equivalent to 200 rating points. A knight
>> is "worth" about 600 rating points.
>
>Some years ago GM Larry Christiansen dropped his queen to an A player
>in a tournament game. I think he did get a knight for it but no other
>compensation. The A player played very well but eventually Larry
>won. This was considered a remarkable accomplishment. The game is
>in an old Chess Life. So I'd guess that Kasparov would win, but be
>in a precarious position at all times.
>
>--
>** to...@merlin.cobb.ziff.com | (502) 493-3401 | All opinions my own **
From memory, it was an expert, not an A player :)
But the main reason why Larry won was because he "blitzed" his opponent:
i.e. Larry played very fast and his opponent started to also, even though
there was no time trouble. I think that if the expert had kept a cool
head, he would have crushed Larry. Maybe Larry should have told him in
advance he would hang his queen :)
Greg Kennedy
: IM Michael Brooks used to give rook odds at speed chess to experts and low
: masters (and reportedly even to some GM's, though I never heard him claim
Bring him on! And while you're at it, tell him to bring his Visa card,
'cause I don't give away rooks, and I don't take American Express... :-)
-Weak Master
Mr M J Hannon
|>
|> I once saw Max Dlugy giving 5-4 time odds and a knight against a 2150
|> player - and Dlugy was winning. I suspect that blitz favors the stronger
|> player quite heavily, but it was impressive anyway.
|>
|> Bill Moran
|>
but blitz would be much better than 40/2 at knight odds i think . iI mean for
example if the 2250 can exchange queens he will almost certainly win so kasparov
has to alter his strstegy for that wheras normally if a master plays an expert and gets the queens of he wins as his main plus is in the ending. I find it
very difficult to imagine how a game with Kasparov winning could go if the 2250 played sensibly taking his material advantage into account. at 40/2 that is
at Blitz one can imagine A strong grandmaster would play every move instantly
and miss no tactics that a 2250 can see so a win for kasparov is quuite likely.
Andy Tannenbaum
of the toughest machines that logs in at knight odds? This should be
more easily arranged than a match with Kasparov, and would be more
telling than the conjectures in this thread.
Paul Powell
: Perhaps one of you 2250 players could get on ICS and try blitzing one
: of the toughest machines that logs in at knight odds? This should be
: more easily arranged than a match with Kasparov, and would be more
: telling than the conjectures in this thread.
This would tell nothing.
The debate is over 40/2.
A World Champion can adjust his ideas and plans according to award his
self winning "chances". He can do this even at the cost of making a
second best move. The current machines would not.
R,
Paul Powell
(whose avg rating over the past X years is 2250)
Peter Stein
No it would not. The proposal did not entail blitz, besides playing on
ICS is heavily stacked in the machines favor.
I still am amazed by how many think that Kasparov would win. If the master
has an established rating I don't give Kasparov a prayer. People keep
making the same mistake over and over on assessing this situation: a 600
point difference between 2 masters is not the same as a 600 point difference
between a 1400 and a 2000 player. A true master has a sufficient grasp of the
game to know how to exploit knight odds. Remember we're not proposing to give
the 2250 knight odds in a sharp position we're giving him knight odds from
the starting position. Just how is Kasparov going to build an attack without
subjecting his pieces to liquidating exchanges?
Perhaps someone can dig up examples of world championship caliber masters
spotting real 2250s knight odds and winning. Until then my money is on my
low 2200 brethren.
Peter Stein
n...@xnet.com
William Johnson
>I still am amazed by how many think that Kasparov would win. If the master
>has an established rating I don't give Kasparov a prayer. People keep
>making the same mistake over and over on assessing this situation: a 600
>point difference between 2 masters is not the same as a 600 point difference
>between a 1400 and a 2000 player. A true master has a sufficient grasp of the
Maybe, but I don't think so; your analysis is a bit too simplistic.
The essential issue here seems to be this question: Would Kasparov succeed in
complicating the game sufficiently for the master to lose his way, before the
master can simplify into a position where Kasparov has no chances? I submit
that the correct answer is "it depends on the master." Accepting the premise
that a 2250 player has a basic idea of how chess works, it's interesting to
consider the question "what makes a 2600 player stronger than a 2250?" Based
on 25 years of observing masters (and occasionally playing like one), I think
the only possible answer is that there is something about the master's play
that falls significantly short of the GM level -- not necessarily everything,
but *something*. Maybe it's calculating skill, maybe it's endgame play, maybe
something like determination.
And the question of how the master would fare against Kasparov, IMO, comes
down to just where the master's deficiencies are. I know several people at
about this rating level who simply *cannot* be conservative. The pieces *will*
fly in their games, whether they want them to or not; inability to play a quiet
game is the fatal flaw that separates these guys from 2600s. In my opinion
there is *no* doubt that a knight-down Kasparov would have these players for
lunch. Kasparov would win almost every game with White, and wouldn't do too
badly with Black. But I also know 2250 players (hi, Steve!) whose fatal flaw
is elsewhere -- poor opening preparation, vulnerability to fatigue are two
examples -- that would be much harder to exploit. These players would do
much better, and might win.
Another thing is the rules of the competition. Historically, it has been
normal to play odds games according to the rule that the odds-giver has White.
If you give Kasparov White in *every* match game, I'd bet that he'd beat
almost any 2250 player -- simply because the player of the White pieces can
almost always stir up complications, without running too many risks. But if
the colors alternate it's a different story, because Kasparov as Black would
find it much more difficult to complicate. The conservative master would have
a very good shot at winning this match; the complicator, however, would still
be betrayed by his temperament, and would lose.
All of which seems to argue to me that the proposed match is a fair fight.
--
Bill Johnson | "The only way to deal with bureaucrats
Los Alamos National Laboratory | is with stealth and sudden violence."
Los Alamos, New Mexico USA | (Attributed to UN Secretary-General
(bjoh...@godiva.lanl.gov) | Boutros-Ghali, with thanks to Joe Chew)
Francesco Di Tolla
|> If you give Kasparov White in *every* match game, I'd bet that he'd beat
|> almost any 2250 player -- simply because the player of the White pieces can
|> almost always stir up complications, without running too many risks.
Come on! A tempo is nothing respect to a full piece. Sometimes it is
hard to justify a pawn sacrifice for a tempo!
I don't think that black or white makes a big difference. Kasparov
would probably loose a match in which he plays with both colors as
a match with always white.
bye
Franz
Peter Stein
William Johnson <m...@beta.lanl.gov> wrote:
>In article <3h5vpf$m...@flood.xnet.com> n...@xnet.com (Peter Stein) writes:
>>I still am amazed by how many think that Kasparov would win. If the master
>>has an established rating I don't give Kasparov a prayer. People keep
>>making the same mistake over and over on assessing this situation: a 600
>>point difference between 2 masters is not the same as a 600 point difference
>>between a 1400 and a 2000 player. A true master has a sufficient grasp of the
>>game to know how to exploit knight odds. [...]
>
>Maybe, but I don't think so; your analysis is a bit too simplistic.
>
>The essential issue here seems to be this question: Would Kasparov succeed in
>complicating the game sufficiently for the master to lose his way, before the
>master can simplify into a position where Kasparov has no chances? I submit
>that the correct answer is "it depends on the master." Accepting the premise
>that a 2250 player has a basic idea of how chess works, it's interesting to
>consider the question "what makes a 2600 player stronger than a 2250?" Based
>on 25 years of observing masters (and occasionally playing like one), I think
>the only possible answer is that there is something about the master's play
>that falls significantly short of the GM level -- not necessarily everything,
>but *something*. Maybe it's calculating skill, maybe it's endgame play, maybe
>something like determination.
Ah we're getting to the crux of the matter. I postulate that the difference is
due to incremental superiority in many areas, both chess and non-chess.
Consistency first and foremost comes to mind. Fighting spirit is another. And
of course more refined heuristics.
The question seems to be how much greater the sum of these superiorities needs
to be in order to offset knight odds in a 40/2 time control. Of course against
a fellow GM, IM, or FM, Kasparov would be dead lost. Every position has an
absolute truth, i.e. the result arrived at by best play on both sides. Those
who favor Kasparov at odds seem to be saying that the 2250 not only can't
find the best moves in 40/2, but that he can't even find moves good enough to
draw. A knight is a huge advantage, especially in a 40/2 time control. That
advantage is simply to large to overcome when playing a legit 2250. Note
that I qualified 2250, many posters have been painting pictures of 2250s
with serious flaws (as you are about to do in the next paragraph). In many
cases were it not for reference to the rating one would think these people
are describing experts.
>And the question of how the master would fare against Kasparov, IMO, comes
>down to just where the master's deficiencies are. I know several people at
>about this rating level who simply *cannot* be conservative. The pieces *will*
>fly in their games, whether they want them to or not; inability to play a quiet
>game is the fatal flaw that separates these guys from 2600s. In my opinion
>there is *no* doubt that a knight-down Kasparov would have these players for
>lunch. Kasparov would win almost every game with White, and wouldn't do too
>badly with Black. But I also know 2250 players (hi, Steve!) whose fatal flaw
>is elsewhere -- poor opening preparation, vulnerability to fatigue are two
>examples -- that would be much harder to exploit. These players would do
>much better, and might win.
Well if those "piece flying" 2250s play in a lot of events they won't be
2250s much longer. I've seen quite a number of rating corrections in the
midwestern pool of players. Lower rated players are amassing to much
knowledge to be able to simply bowl them over with tactics. This I know
from painful first hand experience. The low rated masters that are consistently
successful have an incremental approach to the game: take what your opponents
give you. If they give you shots you crush 'em otherwise you squeeze like a
Python. I simply can't see Kasparov beating such a master at knight odds in
40/2.
>Another thing is the rules of the competition. Historically, it has been
>normal to play odds games according to the rule that the odds-giver has White.
>If you give Kasparov White in *every* match game, I'd bet that he'd beat
>almost any 2250 player -- simply because the player of the White pieces can
>almost always stir up complications, without running too many risks. But if
>the colors alternate it's a different story, because Kasparov as Black would
>find it much more difficult to complicate. The conservative master would have
>a very good shot at winning this match; the complicator, however, would still
>be betrayed by his temperament, and would lose.
>
>All of which seems to argue to me that the proposed match is a fair fight.
I guess this will ultimately be resolved only by real games. Eric, how about
talking to your buddy to set something up? Possibly in conjunction with his
promised speed event appearance. I think something like this would be a
tremendous promotion.
Peter Stein
n...@xnet.com
Marc-Francois Baudot
the top ten players in the world if they all give him the advantage of a knight!
He claims he's able to score 9 out of 10 (at least!)
If there is any sponsor interested...
Marc-Francois Baudot
David Gertler
: The question seems to be how much greater the sum of these superiorities needs
: to be in order to offset knight odds in a 40/2 time control. Of course against
: a fellow GM, IM, or FM, Kasparov would be dead lost.
Thanks!
--Dave Gertler
(possibly the only FM in the country with a USCF rating around 2250)
P.S. My guess would be that the strength needed to break even with
Kasparov in a Knight-odds match would be around 2200. The flaws
that keep a 2250 from becoming a stronger master probably mean
less than an extra Knight; the flaws that keep a high expert or
low master from becoming a solid master are more serious. (From
decades of tournament experience, I think those 50 points are
significant ones.)
Kenneth Sloan
David Gertler <dger...@marlin.ssnet.com> wrote:
>...
>--Dave Gertler
>(possibly the only FM in the country with a USCF rating around 2250)
Let's go to the database, Dave!
Dave's USCF rating is 2262*M2. I interpret "around 2250" to be
somewhere in the range 2200-2300. But, perhaps 2225-2275 is what Dave
means. A grep here, and emacs there, and we see:
================================================================
Players shown in the latest FIDE list as FM's, from USA, who also have
appeared on a USCF ratings list in the last 3 years.
Key:
+ -> USCF [2276-2299]
= -> USCF [2225-2275]
- -> USCF [2200-2224]
USCF FIDE NAME
---- ---- -------------------
+ 2283 2240 ADELMAN,CHARLES
2322 2325 Allen,BrianL
2335 2310 ANDERSON,RENARD W
2437 2370 ARDAMAN,MILES F
2388 2300 ARNETT,DAVID A
+ 2296 2285 BACZYNSKYJ,BORIS
2390 2250 BEELBY,MATTHEW AARON
2324 2270 BELOPOLSKY,BORIS
= 2275 2370 BLUMENFELD,RUDY
2405 2290 BOOTH,STEPHEN A
2539 2440 BRADFORD,JOSEPH MARK
2342 2285 BRASKET,CURT JUSTIN
- 2208 2285 BROWNSCOMBE,TOM
2513 2370 BURNETT,RONALD WAYNE
= 2243 2265 BUSQUETS,LUIS
2428 2330 CHASE,CHRISTOPHER WAYNE
2430 2300 CHOW,ALBERT C
2402 2335 CHOW,RICHARD T
2302 2310 CONOVER,WAYNE
2404 2335 CUNNINGHAM,ROBIN J
2396 2265 CURDO,JOHN A
+ 2292 2285 DEHMELT,KARL
+ 2288 2260 DOLGITSER,KONSTANTIN
2309 2285 DUBISCH,RALPH
2400 2240 DURHAM,DAN
+ 2290 2285 ECKERT,DOUG D
2443 2405 FANG,JOSEPH H
2341 2320 FELDMAN,STEVEN
2524 2420 FOYGEL,IGOR
2317 2290 FRIEDMAN,JOSEF I
2354 2375 GARBER,STANISLAV
2406 2320 GETZ,SHELBY D
2416 2320 Glueck,DavidS
= 2257 2395 GOLDBERG,MITCHELL D
= 2260 2335 GOLYAK,ISAY
2353 2315 GOREGLIAD,SERGEI
2416 2330 Gorman,Dov
= 2233 2315 Gottesman,Jerome
2471 2355 GRIEGO,DAVID W
+ 2294 2310 HAYWARD,KEITH R
2468 2400 HERTAN,CHARLES E
2401 2280 HOFFMANN,ASA
2431 2355 IZUMIKAWA,BURT T
2293 2345 JACOBI,STEVEN P
2319 2290 JOHNSON,LEONARD J
2200 2245 JOSENHANS,DANIEL
2332 2340 KARKLINS,ANDREW
2437 2295 KAUSHANSKY,LEO
2439 2345 KELLEHER,WILLIAM J
2397 2340 KELSON,RICHARD
2417 2390 KLEIN,EREZ
= 2272 2265 KLEIN,LAWRENCE E
2429 2340 KOPLOY,PAUL J
2434 2390 LA FLAIR,ROGER
2582 2360 LAKDAWALA,CYRUS F
2420 2360 LARSEN,KENNETH C
+ 2282 2255 LEVIN,DAVID H
= 2261 2275 LEVY,LOUIS
2437 2315 LINDSAY,FRED
= 2262 2260 LONOFF,MARC J
2370 2265 MAKI,JAMES J
2421 2335 MANION,JOSH
2507 2420 MAR,CRAIG H
2367 2280 MARKZON,GREGORY
2337 2340 MARTINOVSKY,EUGENE
2558 2405 MEN,BORIS
2324 2295 MORRIS,MATTHEW
2343 2260 POPOVYCH,OREST
2347 2310 Prosviriakov,Vladimir
2300 2315 RABINOVICH,ARKADY
= 2232 2295 REICHSTEIN,BORIS
2418 2400 RITTER,MARK
2348 2365 ROWLEY,ROBERT JAMES
2422 2320 SALES,JESSE NOEL
2320 2275 SALGADO,ROB
= 2245 2255 SALMAN,JOEL
= 2231 2270 SALMAN,NACHUM
= 2250 2280 SALOMON,MIGUEL F
= 2260 2295 SAVAGE,ALLAN G
2440 2330 SCHULIEN,CHARLES E
+ 2280 2275 SHAHADE,MICHAEL
2516 2385 SHAKED,TAL
+ 2291 2265 SHAPIRO,DANIEL E
2401 2255 SHTERN,IGOR
2385 2310 STOYKO,STEPHEN E
2313 2290 SULMAN,ROBERT M
2464 2370 TATE,EMORY A
2450 2350 THINNSEN,JAMES A
2420 2350 Tomkins,KenP
2333 2310 TORRES,JAVIER ANTONIO
= 2267 2335 TRUONG,HOAINHAN M
2326 2285 VAN BUSKIRK,CHARLES
= 2256 2275 VEACH,JOSEPH
2527 2390 Volovich,Anatoly
+ 2283 2215 WAGMAN,STUART E
+ 2292 2225 WEINBERGER,TIBOR
2342 2315 WELDON,CHARLES
2439 2305 WHARTON,WILLIAM A
2313 2320 WOLSKI,THOMAS
2476 2390 YEDIDIA,JONATHAN
2327 2310 YOFFIE,MARC E
2354 2260 YOUNG,RONALD M
2305 2275 YU,PETER C
2358 2325 ZELKIND,EDUARD
2354 2275 ZISMAN,BORIS
================================================================
Hmmm - no Dave Gertler? Has FIDE banned him for supporting the PCA?
Just inactive, I guess.
And, of course, this is yet another list that someone might want to use
to estimate the FIDE<->USCF conversion. I'm too lazy.
[If you do this, please be sure to discuss possible sources of bias.]
--
Kenneth Sloan Computer and Information Sciences
sl...@cis.uab.edu University of Alabama at Birmingham
(205) 934-2213 115A Campbell Hall, UAB Station
(205) 934-5473 FAX Birmingham, AL 35294-1170
Joseph F. Ford
: --Dave Gertler
: (possibly the only FM in the country with a USCF rating around 2250)
: P.S. My guess would be that the strength needed to break even with
: Kasparov in a Knight-odds match would be around 2200. The flaws
: that keep a 2250 from becoming a stronger master probably mean
: less than an extra Knight; the flaws that keep a high expert or
: low master from becoming a solid master are more serious. (From
: decades of tournament experience, I think those 50 points are
: significant ones.)
Hmmm. Can you elaborate, Dave? (or should I call you Mr. 2250? ;-))
What are those flaws and how did you overcome them?
So it won't take the rest of us decades to figure it out.
Mike Nieves
nie...@nieves.eglin.af.mil
William Johnson
>(William Johnson) writes:
>
>|> If you give Kasparov White in *every* match game, I'd bet that he'd beat
>|> almost any 2250 player -- simply because the player of the White pieces can
>|> almost always stir up complications, without running too many risks.
>
>
>Come on! A tempo is nothing respect to a full piece. Sometimes it is
>hard to justify a pawn sacrifice for a tempo!
You're misunderstanding what the White vs. Black difference is all about. Any
number of writers, plus a lot of personal experience, will tell you that the
big advantage of White is not so much the tempo as the ability to *force* the
game into the channels that White wants them in. White wants hair-raising
complications? He plays 1 e4, then with ANY Black defense, can find a highly
complicated line to steer into -- either that or force Black to concede
something significant. Look through the complicated lines in nominally
"quiet" openings like the Caro-Kann, Alekhine, Pirc. They all get complicated
because *White* wants them to -- in the case of the Pirc (which is still the
defense I'd probably choose playing this match against Kasparov), White forces
complications so easily that the Pirc is considered a wild opening even though
its basic goal is a conservative one! Conversely, if White wants to play for
peace and quiet, he can do so with the "Businessman's Opening" (1 d4 ... 2 Nf3
... 3 Bf4 ... 4 e3 ... 5 c3 ...) and there is not much (sound) that Black can
do about it.
Sorry, but I'll stick with my statement: colors matter, even at Knight odds.
William Johnson
>In article <3h6bd9$4...@newshost.lanl.gov>,
>William Johnson <m...@beta.lanl.gov> wrote:
>>The essential issue here seems to be this question: Would Kasparov succeed in
>>complicating the game sufficiently for the master to lose his way, before the
>
>Ah we're getting to the crux of the matter. I postulate that the difference is
>due to incremental superiority in many areas, both chess and non-chess.
For some 2250s, that's probably true. For others it's *definitely* not, all
of which is my point: it depends on the master. Your "consistency" criterion
is an incredibly important one; I can think of one unquestioned master, not
a 2250 but a 2300 (hi, Rick! long time no see! drop me a line...), that I would
uncircumstantially refuse to back in a Knight-odds match with Kasparov, because
years of experience have taught me that he is *not* steady enough to cash the
piece in -- even though he's a tactician on a par with almost anyone I've ever
played. Yet this guy has been a master long enough to get the USCF Life Master
title.
>Consistency first and foremost comes to mind. Fighting spirit is another. And
>of course more refined heuristics.
Hold on here. I think "consistency" is not a clearly demonstrated attribute
of the average 2250 player; look at the rating excursions that some of these
guys go through. And it's one failing that Kasparov would exploit ruthlessly.
Don't try to get around this by limiting your pool to people that "always"
play at the 2250 level; people that "always" play at this level have ratings
of 2350...
>Those
>who favor Kasparov at odds seem to be saying that the 2250 not only can't
>find the best moves in 40/2, but that he can't even find moves good enough to
>draw. [...]
Not exactly. I don't exactly "favor" Kasparov -- remember, my opinion is
that it's close to an even fight -- but my formulation is more like this: I
don't think a 2250 can *constantly* find moves that maintain the big
advantage *without giving Kasparov a chance to complicate* -- and that once
the complications start, the 2250's odds of *constantly* finding moves good
enough to draw, let alone win, fall dramatically. All it takes is one slip,
and the complications will be there; and I don't think a 2250 can make it
through the game most of the time without that slip.
>that I qualified 2250, many posters have been painting pictures of 2250s
>with serious flaws (as you are about to do in the next paragraph).
As if even a career 2250 *doesn't* have serious flaws? I don't follow your
argument.
>Well if those "piece flying" 2250s play in a lot of events they won't be
>2250s much longer. I've seen quite a number of rating corrections in the
>midwestern pool of players. [...]
Well, an exercise for readers: Take the list that Ken Sloan helpfully
posted, and go through and find the sub-2300 masters you know. Then figure
what proportion of them are "piece-flying" types. Curiously, I know more
2300+ players on Ken's list than 2200<X<2300, but I can certainly find some
wild and crazy ones among the lower-rated masters that I *do* know. And I
wouldn't bet on those guys a Knight up versus Kasparov if you gave me 10/1
odds! Sorry, Peter, but I'm not going to let you define the problem away;
the rating corrections (which certainly have occurred) aren't that pervasive.
>I guess this will ultimately be resolved only by real games. Eric, how about
>talking to your buddy to set something up? Possibly in conjunction with his
>promised speed event appearance. I think something like this would be a
>tremendous promotion.
A hearty amen to that!
Peter Stein
>
>: The question seems to be how much greater the sum of these superiorities needs
>: to be in order to offset knight odds in a 40/2 time control. Of course against
>: a fellow GM, IM, or FM, Kasparov would be dead lost.
>
>Thanks!
>
>--Dave Gertler
>(possibly the only FM in the country with a USCF rating around 2250)
Nope. Eric Schiller was around 2218 at the US Open. Sorry Eric, now
we're even for that game in the ICB! :-)
>P.S. My guess would be that the strength needed to break even with
>Kasparov in a Knight-odds match would be around 2200. The flaws
>that keep a 2250 from becoming a stronger master probably mean
>less than an extra Knight; the flaws that keep a high expert or
>low master from becoming a solid master are more serious. (From
>decades of tournament experience, I think those 50 points are
>significant ones.)
Well put.
Peter Stein
n...@xnet.com
Paul Powell
: P.S. My guess would be that the strength needed to break even with
: Kasparov in a Knight-odds match would be around 2200.
I don't think it would be this low. However some 2200 would be "in" the
match others may be blown away.
Evans stated in February Chess Life:
"We have no doubt that any 2250 worth his salt should beat a 2800 player
with knight odds-..."
Well all we know from this is that Evans has lost his grip.
First Evans is not a "we" accept where he speaks on USCF politics.
A 2800 FIDE is not 550 point away from 2250 USCF.
A 2250 might win but it would not be a walk.
How about this one... Could Evans beat Kasparov at pawn and move odds?
I think Garri would walk all over Evans. So why should a lousy 2250 hold
his own.
:The flaws that keep a 2250 from becoming a stronger master probably
:mean less than an extra Knight; the flaws that keep a high expert or
: low master from becoming a solid master are more serious. (From
: decades of tournament experience, I think those 50 points are
: significant ones.)
I would that the most signigicant 50 points are the ones right in front
of you.
R,
Paul Powell
Gerd Heinrichs
A 2250 player hasn´t got enough understanding of the game. Kasparov would win
and win and WIN!!!
It´s very clear that both K´s are a class of their own and even have a more
profound understanding of the game than many grandmasters.
Kasparov thinks in terms of combinations. He looks at the board and the combinations
flash through his head. A 2250 player has compared to Kasparov much lesser skills.
We should look at it from another point of view. Look at the game of chess as a game
of opportunities. The fact that the 2250 player is a knight up means that he would
give away less chances than he would normaly. Kasparov would even then seize any
opportunity in the game for a tactical blow. Being a knight down doesn´t criple him,
it makes the 2250 player just limp less!
Greetings
Anders Forberg
Kasparov abilities here, and for that sake every other 2600 players as well.
That Kasparov would win almost every game as white against a 2250
player seems ridiculous to me, especially at even time controls above
30 minutes a game.
John Hogatt
I have no doubt that any decent master could thrash anyone at Knight odds,
as long as it weren't at some very short time control. It gets too easy
to reduce things to technical questions, with that much extra wood in the
bank.
This whole question strikes me as a dumb point to debate. If anyone really
wants to test the matter, let him raise a couple million and set up a match.
Without that, this is all just jabber.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Hoggatt, FIDE master <j4ho...@mccoy.srv.pacbell.com>
Pacific Bell may not share my opinions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
BradleeJ
attribute
>of the average 2250 player; look at the rating excursions that some of
these
>guys go through.
Absolutely. I think that would have to be one of the criteria for selcting
said "2250" player. That he or she have been at or around 2250 +/-?50 for
a considerable amount of time. What Elo referred to as a "platteau" I
believe. This would be one of the preconditions of the match. Also that
the player have been fairly active over the past couple of years.
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
BradleeJ
chess as a game
>of opportunities. The fact that the 2250 player is a knight up means that
he would
>give away less chances than he would normaly. Kasparov would even then
seize any
>opportunity in the game for a tactical blow. Being a knight down doesn´t
criple him,
>it makes the 2250 player just limp less!
Or maybe we should look at it from this point of view. How would Gary like
to try to play against the KID sans Qknight? Against the French minus the
knight? Can you say "Tarrasch variation". So Gary decides to open the
French. Hmmm. Now that "bad French bishop" comes into the game. You and
others that favor Gary seem to think that he's going to hurl thunderbolts
from atop mount Olympus. But I think that's tough to do in the above
positions where the Knights have a lot of value and the bishops less so
AND they are virtually impossible for white to avoid without conceding
more (positionally or materially). These aren't the only two defenses
obviously but I don't know enough about the Pirc, Modern, or English
defenses to comment.
A good master should be able to pick nice closed lines that maximize the
value of the knights while minimizing the bishops. Can Gary open it up?
Sure. What's he going to pay for it?
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
Exclam
Certainly Kasparov couldn't beat *every* 2250 player at those odds. But
just as certainly he could beat *some* of them.
So far most folks have talked about the proposed match in purely chessic
terms -- what the 600-point rating difference means, what strategies a
master would use, and the like.
But I think Kasparov (as opposed to "just any" 2800 player!) would beat a
fair number of 2250s pschologically. The master might score a few early
points in the proposed 10-game match. But then something funny would begin
to happen. Kasparov would begin to "figure out" his 2250 opponent. He
would work harder and harder to get the guy (or gal) into positions that
are uncomfortable for him. And he'd put on the pressure. And he'd keep
coming at him. Harder, harder, harder, until the games became vicious. And
always there would be that often intimidating Karparovian presence. And
the overwhelming fear of humiliation that would cloud the master's
judgment -- how could he possibly lose a Knight-odds game? Our 2250, who,
let's face it, just doesn't have the resolve, the profound understanding,
and the killer-shark instinct of a superGM, would lose a game. Big. And
then another. And another. And the match would turn into a pathetic route.
Not all 2250s would fall this way, but I bet quite a few would.
It would be far more interesting to debate whether a *specific* 2250
player could beat Kasparov. But this begins to get too personal, and so I
demur.
Paul Powell
: I have no doubt that any decent master could thrash anyone at Knight odds,
: as long as it weren't at some very short time control. It gets too easy
: to reduce things to technical questions, with that much extra wood in the
: bank.
Too easy... Yep sure.. Like a World Champion is going to just offer to
trade pieces.
: This whole question strikes me as a dumb point to debate. If anyone really
: wants to test the matter, let him raise a couple million and set up a match.
: Without that, this is all just jabber.
I guess in this case then your dumber then the rest of us. We do not
feel that is dumb and post. You say that it is dumb and post.
R,
Paul Powell
Gerd Heinrichs
Come on!! It´s ridiculous to even think that Kasparov would play
existing opening lines. These lines have evolved during CENTURIES
from a position with ALL PIECES on the board.
Removing white´s Queens Knight creates a whole NEW position with
specific demands.
Gary is a pro. Above all he will play the position on the board and
not an opening line he knows by heart just to be very surprised
when he reaches out for his queens knight that it isn´t there.
If that was so he would *NEVER* have become World Champion.
If people try to refute this dicussion by bringing up opening
lines and saying: ´where is Gary know without his Queens Knight
in the KID or the French or whatever´ than these people should
join Patsers Unanimous and keep on dreaming.
BradleeJ
>existing opening lines.
The French, KID and other lines are characterized by their pawn
structures, not by whether you have extra pieces on the board. In
addition, these structures can fairly well be dictated by black. One can
almost play the first 5 or 6 moves fo the KID with ones eyes closed (it
gets a bit trickier after that :) )
>These lines have evolved during CENTURIES from a position with ALL PIECES
on the >board.Removing white´s Queens Knight creates a whole NEW position
with
>specific demands.
Well, I don't know about centureis but... as I state above, many of these
defenses including things such as the Benoni, Sicilian, French etc. are
defined by the pawn structure. Yes, indeed, if black responded to 1 e4
with 1 ...e4, you are in another dimension altogether. But if he responds
with 1 ...e6, you're gonna get some kind of French pawn structure with all
its strengths and weaknesses regardless of Mr. Kasparov's missing knight.
>Gary is a pro. Above all he will play the position on the board and
>not an opening line he knows by heart just to be very surprised
>when he reaches out for his queens knight that it isn´t there.
I think you missed the point I was making. In the Tarrasch variation the
white knight is needed on d2. Of course, he isn't going to reach out for a
knight that isn't there. The point is that white has a hard enough time
defending his Qside WITH his queen knight available. It would be a real
bear without it.
>If that was so he would *NEVER* have become World Champion.
What?
>If people try to refute this dicussion by bringing up opening
>lines and saying: ´where is Gary know without his Queens Knight
>in the KID or the French or whatever´ than these people should
>join Patsers Unanimous and keep on dreaming.
Pawn Structure Chess by GM Soltis would be a good start for you. Then let
the subscription to Pazters Anonymous lapse.
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
WJ> Bill Johnson | "The only way to deal with bureaucrats Los
WJ> Alamos National Laboratory | is with stealth and sudden violence."
Got any extra sub-atomic particle we can swing by New Windsor?
Make them heavy bosons.
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * We secretly replaced Bill Clinton w/Folgers crystals...
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
WJ> complications? He plays 1 e4, then with ANY Black defense, can find
WJ> a highly complicated line to steer into -- either that or force
WJ> Black to concede something significant. Look through the
WJ> complicated lines in nominally
I suspect that *all* lines of *all* Black responses to
1.e4 will be very highly favorable to Black when he
has an extra knight.
If White plays an open game, he is just dead busted. And there
is no way he can force a closed game, unless he simply refuses to
move his pawns up, plays stupid moves like e3, d3, Ne2 etc,
which are really NOT LIKELY to work against a 2250 who exercises
even a modicum of caution in deciding when to crack the shell.
A 10 game match: Kasparov vs. a 2250 at knights odds?
1-9, 2250 wins, for all relevant and normal 2250's.
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * If 2 pickpockets pick 2 pockets how many pockets were picked
Greg Kennedy
: BradleeJ (brad...@aol.com) wrote:
: First off lets get a clue hear. Garri will not be playing 1.e4
Aha! Been calling the psychic hotline, eh? ;-)
[deleted]
: What the hell are you talking about!? White defending his queenside!?
: Black plays defense, white should play good moves!
Black would certainly not be playing defense with an extra knight. What
are _you_ talking about? And White (Garry) would have no objectively
"good" moves- only ones which make his opponent's task of winning by
force as difficult as possible.
: : Pawn Structure Chess by GM Soltis would be a good start for you. Then let
: : the subscription to Pazters Anonymous lapse. ^^^
: Pawn Structure Chess by GM Soltis... LOL If you think that would help
: some one in a match with Kasparov....
Sheesh- don't you recognize an insult when you see one? The word "you"
should have at least registered.
: I'm starting to think I could give Knight odds to most of the people who
: think Kasparov would lose to a 2250.
I accept. Your move as White (remove your QN). $5 million. Winner takes all.
tick, tick... :-)
Greg Kennedy
Alessandro Miotto
In article <3hh7al$j...@news.euro.net>,
Gerd Heinrichs <mi...@euronet.nl@euronet.nl> writes:
>
>If people try to refute this dicussion by bringing up opening
>lines and saying: ´where is Gary know without his Queens Knight
>in the KID or the French or whatever´ than these people should
>join Patsers Unanimous and keep on dreaming.
>
Alessandro
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alessandro Miotto - CN/DCI/UES | Tel: +41 22 767 9576
CERN - European Laboratory | E-mail: mio...@dxcern.cern.ch
John Black
takes even pseudo-chess exercises like this very seriously. He would first
(probably) study the last 50 or 100 games of his 2250 opponent and find
subtle tendencies and weaknesses in his play. Then he would decide how to
best exploit these weakness with the fact that Garry's a piece down accounted
for. Garry would spend A LOT of time and be very thorough, but...
...he would have to be well paid. So it will probably never happen...
john//
Paul Powell
: In article <3hh7al$j...@news.euro.net>,
: Gerd Heinrichs <mi...@euronet.nl@euronet.nl> writes:
: >
: >If people try to refute this dicussion by bringing up opening
: >lines and saying: ´where is Gary know without his Queens Knight
: >in the KID or the French or whatever´ than these people should
: >join Patsers Unanimous and keep on dreaming.
: >
: BTW, what is your rating? I could not find you in the latest ELO list...
: Alessandro
: --
I think Gerd point is sound.
Patsers Unanimous is a good place for such questions.
And feel free to look me up.
R,
Paul Powell
Paul Powell
: >I'm starting to think I could give Knight odds to most of the people who
: >think Kasparov would lose to a 2250.
: I am convinced that Kasparov without a Knight would lose to a ELO 2250 in a 40/2 h
: match and I accept your challenge.
: On the contrary, it seems to me that the seemingly stronger players in this debate
: have been on the 2250's side. Weaker players may not realise just how completely
: Håkan (a has-been 2250).
In Simul's I've played Botvinnik, Tal and Karpov.
I think you are making light of a World Champions chances.
R,
Paul Powell
(2270 FIDE)
BradleeJ
>: I think you missed the point I was making. In the Tarrasch variation
the
>: white knight is needed on d2. Of course, he isn't going to reach out
for a
>: knight that isn't there. The point is that white has a hard enough time
>: defending his Qside WITH his queen knight available. It would be a real
>: bear without it.
>
>Black plays defense, white should play good moves!
You jumped into the middle of this. We were talking about the French where
black does indeed attack (counter-attack if you will). If black doesn't
play c5 at some point in most variations of the French he's dead meat.
>: Pawn Structure Chess by GM Soltis would be a good start for you. Then
let
>: the subscription to Pazters Anonymous lapse.
>
>Pawn Structure Chess by GM Soltis... LOL If you think that would help
>some one in a match with Kasparov....
Where the hell did you get the idea that I was suggesting this book to
someone who would be playing against Kasparov? Did you read the posting at
all? The gentleman's arguement was that the KID, French et all would not
and could not be played without the missing knight. He then flamed me by
advising me to join "Patsers Unanimous". I was pointing out that the pawn
structures are the determining factors as to what the opening is and that
HE should get the book Pawn Structure Chess (and you should get a new pair
of reading glasses).
>I'm starting to think I could give Knight odds to most of the people who
>think Kasparov would lose to a 2250.
>
>R,
>Paul Powell
Do you just automatically take the opposite side of anything the Larry
Evans says?
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
PP> : I have no doubt that any decent master could thrash anyone at
PP> Knight odds, : as long as it weren't at some very short time
PP> control. It gets too easy : to reduce things to technical
PP> questions, with that much extra wood in the : bank.
PP> Too easy... Yep sure.. Like a World Champion is going to just offer
PP> to trade pieces.
Um... no.
Let me explain some basic chess to you.
The process of avoiding trades which come naturally when pieces
interact leads to concessions by the player avoiding the
trades.
This is something anyone over 1400 has learned for himself. A most basic
example: You are ahead a piece. You move a rook to an open file. Were
you not ahead a piece, your opponent would continue to dispute the file.
Instead, he moves his rook away, to avoid trades. You get the file.
This is a basic example. It gets much more complex. And most of it is
known to a 2250.
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * We're Straight, we're fed up, now YOU deal with it
DGertler
>I don't know if this has been mentioned in this thread: but Garry usually
>takes even pseudo-chess exercises like this very seriously. He would
first
>(probably) study the last 50 or 100 games of his 2250 opponent and find
>subtle tendencies and weaknesses in his play. Then he would decide how
to
>best exploit these weakness with the fact that Garry's a piece down
accounted
>for. [...]
(Sorry if this message is strangely formatted; my usual Internet service
provider is suffering constant busy signals, so I'm replying through AOL,
which I'm unaccustomed to doing.)
As a FIDE Master with a peak FIDE rating of 2310, I wonder where Garry
would find the last 50 to 100 games of a 2250. In the database at
www.traveller.com, there is exactly one of my games. I guess there are a
handful in those big collections sold on CD-ROM. (I don't have such a
collection, so I'm not sure.) But how many games by a typical 2250 would
be available for study?
Dave Gertler
mel...@ccvax.ucd.ie
> You're misunderstanding what the White vs. Black difference is all about. Any
> number of writers, plus a lot of personal experience, will tell you that the
> big advantage of White is not so much the tempo as the ability to *force* the
> game into the channels that White wants them in. White wants hair-raising
> complications? He plays 1 e4, then with ANY Black defense, can find a highly
> complicated line to steer into -- either that or force Black to concede
> something significant. Look through the complicated lines in nominally
> "quiet" openings like the Caro-Kann, Alekhine, Pirc. They all get complicated
> because *White* wants them to -- in the case of the Pirc (which is still the
> defense I'd probably choose playing this match against Kasparov), White forces
> complications so easily that the Pirc is considered a wild opening even though
> its basic goal is a conservative one! Conversely, if White wants to play for
> peace and quiet, he can do so with the "Businessman's Opening" (1 d4 ... 2 Nf3
> .... 3 Bf4 ... 4 e3 ... 5 c3 ...) and there is not much (sound) that Black can
> do about it.
>
> Sorry, but I'll stick with my statement: colors matter, even at Knight odds.
>
> --
> Bill Johnson | "The only way to deal with bureaucrats
> Los Alamos National Laboratory | is with stealth and sudden violence."
> Los Alamos, New Mexico USA | (Attributed to UN Secretary-General
> (bjoh...@godiva.lanl.gov) | Boutros-Ghali, with thanks to Joe Chew)
How can you seriously claim that a single tempo means so much? Everyone
agrees that a piece is generally worth far, far more than a tempo. White's
choices, a piece down, are very limited. Most normal opening plans will
simply lead to hopelessly lost middlegames.
My FIDE rating is 2280 and I imagine my experience is not untypical: I've
played two 2600 grandmasters in international tournaments. Both GMs took the
games very seriously. In one I played out of my skin and drew. In either
game (or in other games against GMs) if I had been a piece up I would have
been completely confident of winning. All the enormous skill, knowledge and
ability these players have is rendered innocuous with a piece less.
Kasparov is another 200 points higher than the players I've played, but a
whole piece is such an enormous advantage. I don't believe the 2250 would
win every game, but would certainly win a 10 game match with ease.
Regards,
Mel O Cinneide
Pascal Jasmin
would score 8/10 against Kasparov without a knight. Thats at regular
time levels. In blitz or active, Kasparov might do better.
P.A.D....@student.lut.ac.uk
>In article <3hbbov$a...@newshost.lanl.gov>, m...@beta.lanl.gov (William Johnson) writes:
>
>> You're misunderstanding what the White vs. Black difference is all about. Any
>> number of writers, plus a lot of personal experience, will tell you that the
This thread has been going for a long time.
After listening to both sides of the debate,
I think:
The statement 'Kasparov would spot a 2250 player, knight down'
is false.
I believe he might have a reasonable chance of a win (5-15%) say,
but how can you put a figure on it ?
Well its just a way of expressing the confidence I have in the
statement.
I hope more /ordinary/ (non experts) can write in and say which
side they have taken.
Yours.
Pete Rhodes.
--
Pete Rhodes | | Email
4 Tanners Lane | Understanding the brother man | P.A.D.Rhodes1@
Hathern | is my plan | student.lut.ac.uk
Leicestershire | so i'm holding out my hand. |
Paul Powell
: I'm surprised this question is even asked. I think a good 1800 player
: would score 8/10 against Kasparov without a knight. Thats at regular
: time levels. In blitz or active, Kasparov might do better.
Your surprised by the question. I'm shocked and your reponse.
First what the hell is a good 1800 player? Does not 1800 = 1800 ?
An 1800 player would not score 8/10 against me at 30/90.
Kasparov would kill them.
R,
Paul Powell
Wei Wang
I am an 1800 player. Spot me a knight and I don't doubt that
I can score 8/10 on you.
>R,
>Paul Powell
--
Wei Wang wa...@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu
http://www.cen.uiuc.edu/~cw2361/
My opinions are my own, and not those of my employers.
BradleeJ
handle the black pieces against Kasparov in a game when Kasparov was
without his Qknight. Mr. Powell responded that Kasparov playing e4 in this
situation was an absurdity. Yet, in the Feb. Chess to Enjoy column by GM
Andy Soltis, he lists a 1994 game with Kasparov playing the white side of
a Sicilian against Kramnik as one of the top 20 brilliancies of the last
half of this century. When I look in my book of games that show odds of
Qknight they ALL start with e4. My question is this, why wouldn't Kasparov
play e4 when down a Qknight (as opposed to c4, d4, Nf3, etc.)
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
Edward Seedhouse
I asked my friend David Herder (FIDE: 2260) this question and his answer
was "I'd crush Kasparov under such conditions". But he is >2300 CFC
so maybe he is stronger than originally specified. On the other hand
he's around 1600 on ICS because of lag. :-)
A related question might be: At or below what rating would one stand a
better chance of losing than winning a tournament rules match against
Garry Kapaov minus one rook? My guess is <=1900. I certainly think
that I would beat Kasparov at such odds. There's only so many mistakes
I can make and they don't add up to a rook. :-)
Ed Seedhouse
CFC rating: 2100
Edward Seedhouse
> My question is this, why wouldn't Kasparov play e4 when down a Qknight
(as opposed to c4, d4, Nf3, etc.)
Well, after, for instance 1.e4,d5!; 2.ed, Qd5 I can see white's hand
reaching out for his Queen's Knight and finding - nothing! The
Scandinavian darn near equalizes as it is, with knight odds it would be
great for black as long as he has sense enough to develop his pieces,
and what 2250 player wouldn't?
Tim Mirabile
> This is not meant to be disrespectful to Kasparov.
I am convinced that he would win a match 10-0 against
a 2250 even when playing 1 minute against 2 hours. <
Are you insane?! One minute? Better be a real short game.
And I hope Kasparov doesn't have to take a piss during
the game. And no, he's not going to anticipate all of
my moves by thinking on my time. And just because he's
world champ doesn't mean his hands can keep up with his
brain. Even Kasparov has to *think* to find good moves.
I think you should go over some Kasparov games that have
the time used recorded for each move and see how long it
takes him to find brilliant moves.
Tim Mirabile
> I'm starting to think I could give Knight odds to most
> of the people who think Kasparov would lose to a 2250.
I think I could give knight odds to almost anyone who
thinks it's called a horsey. (except maybe a young Polgar)
One thing that surprises me is that a 2250 would
not have enough confidence in *himself* to win such
a match, even if he thought that some other 2250's
would lose. How do you think you would do? Do you
think that you would lose too, or is 2270 good enough
where 2250 isn't. Or perhaps you consider yourself
underrated. It would also be interesting to find out
what He thinks, not that he'd necessarily be right.
Paul Powell
: In an earlier posting, I wrote about various ways in which one could
Simple request.
OK I believe it would be much easier to keep the game closed by playing Nf3.
Nf3 is not the only move, I would try g3 or b3 also Nf3, d4, e3 etc.
e4 would be my last choice. The book that sighted odds of Qknight most
likely were collected from another era. At one time players were
concerned with winning in an attacking style. Now a win is a win.
R,
Paul Powell
dgco...@delphi.com
>A related question might be: At or below what rating would one stand a
>better chance of losing than winning a tournament rules match against
>Garry Kapaov minus one rook? My guess is <=1900. I certainly think
>that I would beat Kasparov at such odds. There's only so many mistakes
>I can make and they don't add up to a rook. :-)
I would rather play Kasparov a knight ahead, rather then a rook. I'm rated
about 1950 USCF. My reasoning is that K's winning strategy will be to
blitz me with an attack early, it is a lot tougher to do this, if hes
without one of his knights. By the time you get to master, the lower rated
player, would do better a rook ahead,of course.
David Gertler
: I'm surprised this question is even asked. I think a good 1800 player
: would score 8/10 against Kasparov without a knight. Thats at regular
: time levels. In blitz or active, Kasparov might do better.
An 1800 player would get killed. Even an expert (2000+) would
be in trouble. Two examples of expert play from a 6-round
tournament I played in this weekend (time limit 50/2):
Expert A (2059) vs. Gertler
1. e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3? Nxd4, free pawn
(He's the second expert to make this mistake against me.)
Gertler vs. Expert B (2085)
1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4 b5
6.dxe5 Nxe4 7.Bb3 Be7?? 8.Qd5, free Knight
These kinds of bad play are what make me think that
someone would have to be around 2200 to hold Kasparov
even in a slow-time-control Knight-odds match.
FM Dave Gertler (dger...@ssnet.com)
(USCF about 2300 after this weekend, but FIDE below 2200)
BradleeJ
Nf3.
>Nf3 is not the only move, I would try g3 or b3 also Nf3, d4, e3 etc.
>
>e4 would be my last choice. The book that sighted odds of Qknight most
>likely were collected from another era. At one time players were
>concerned with winning in an attacking style. Now a win is a win.
>
>R,
>Paul Powell
Your right about the book listing games from another era (I think
Capablanca was the last player listed giving someone Qknight odds). It
seems to me that keeping the position closed is going to favor the extra
black knight. What came out of the example games is that when down in
material, try to make it back in time. So, yes, most of the games were
gambits. Makes some sense to me. The King's Gambit would seem to make a
lot of sense, for example, since the Qknight isn't in the way of getting
the Qrook over to the Kside. In a sense, white gains a tempo. Since he
doesn't want to go to the endgame down a piece, it seems logical that he
would try to scare up some tactical advantage in terms of time (tempi)
instead of trying to slog through a closed game down material.
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
Paul Rubin
Did you get knight odds in those simul games?
It seems to me that they would have mattered to
the World Champions chances.
Paul Rubin
I don't know about 1 minute, but there is a semi-famous story about GM
Nick de Firmian and some 2300 player (I heard it 3rd or 4th hand and
can't swear it's true, but it sounds plausible). They were paired in
a round of some Swiss somewhere and Nick showed up more than an hour
late, which allowed the opponent to claim a time forfeit. Nick
offered to play the guy with 3 minutes on his clock (vs. 2 hours for
the opponent), since he wanted the point to win the tournament and any
chance at all was better than a forfeit. The opponent accepted, since
he liked the prospect of a big jump in his rating if he could report a
win against a 2600+ grandmaster. Needless to say Nick won.
Similarly I very frequently see strong masters (IM's) beat NM's at
blitz with 5-1 time odds. The IM usually knows what the NM is going
to do before the NM does. As soon as the NM's hand starts moving
toward a particular piece, the IM's hand moves to the piece he is
going to reply with and (as measured by the Chronos digital chess
clock) the IM makes most of his moves in about 1/4 second of clock
time!
Paul Powell
: I think I could give knight odds to almost anyone who
: thinks it's called a horsey. (except maybe a young Polgar)
You gotta me there dude. But horsey is such a cool name.
: One thing that surprises me is that a 2250 would
: not have enough confidence in *himself* to win such
: a match, even if he thought that some other 2250's
: would lose. How do you think you would do? Do you
: think that you would lose too, or is 2270 good enough
: where 2250 isn't. Or perhaps you consider yourself
: underrated. It would also be interesting to find out
: what He thinks, not that he'd necessarily be right.
I think if I played Garri it would be a close match.
I would not say that it is a lack of confidence, but respect for how much
a World Champion knows. A player like Garri wins the title and then is
expected to win each tourney he enters for a long as he has the title.
At one time when Garri lost in was front page news.
For the record my FIDE rating is higher then my USCF. I don't think that
a 2250 is a sure thing either way. I mostly objected to the Evans
comment of any 2250 worth his salt....
If you have a copy of something like the Genius2 have a 2200+ play it
some blitz games at knight odds. They will lose a few here and there but
you also hear, Gosh I would have never thought of that plan.
OK Blitz is not 40/2, but the maching would have very little chance at
40/2 since it is not able to make the adjustments in style from move one.
And I don't know if you saw in another post were I mentioned playing some
former world champs in Simuls. Well I was truly amazed at what they
understood to be true. A Karpov simul there were 5 or so master sitting
in a row. NO matter he walked over all of us. One game he just moved
the game into a simple ending, that was won in every line. We all
caught on to that about 10 moves too late.
Again Simuls are not 40/2 but I do know of a NY IM who lost to Garri in a
40+ board simul.
R,
Paul Powell
Hakan Nohre
I feel both sane and quoted out of context. My main point is that a knight is a far more significant handicap than almost any time handicap.
On the side issue, with proper bladder training I think Kasparov would
beat you. He would anticipate all moves your worth anticipating and deliver
mate within 60 moves. Even Kasparov sure has to *think* when he plays Super GMs,
but less so playing lesser players, you and me included.
Regards
Hakan
engelkes
>Tim Mirabile (t...@mail.htp.com) wrote:
>If you have a copy of something like the Genius2 have a 2200+ play it
>some blitz games at knight odds. They will lose a few here and there but
>you also hear, Gosh I would have never thought of that plan.
>OK Blitz is not 40/2, but the maching would have very little chance at
>40/2 since it is not able to make the adjustments in style from move one.
Any 1500+ player can beat any computer (including Deep
Blue/Thought) by using anti-computer methods. I recently gave a rook odds
against the same computer program that beated Kasparov.
Engelkes, WE (1800) - Fritz3 (claimed 2803), 10 min. all.
White giving odds of rook (h1) against his 1000+ stronger opponent.
1.e3 e5 2.g3 d5 3.Bg2 Nf6 4.Ne2 Nc6 5.d3 Be7 6.Kf1 0-0 7.Nd2 Bf5 8.b3 Re8
9.Bb2 Qd7 10.Kg1 Rad8
Hippo-position reached. I play my Queen back and forth 35 times. What
useful things can a 2803 player do with 35 free moves and an extra rook?
11.Qe1 Bh3 12.Bh1 Bg4 13.a3 a6 14.Bg2 Bh3 15.Bh1 Bf5 16.Bg2 Bc5 17.Qd1 Bh3
18.Bh1 Bg4 19.Bg2 d4 20.e4 Be7 21.Qe1 Bd6 22.Qd1 h6 23.Qe1 Re7 24.Qf1 Rde8
25.Qe1 Bc5 26.Qf1 Be6 27.Qe1 Ba7 28.Qf1 Ng4 29.Qe1 Kh8 30.Qf1 b5 31.Qe1 a5
32.Qf1 Nf6 33.Qe1 Qd6 34.Qf1 Qc5 35.Rc1 Ng4 36.Qe1 Qb6 37.Qf1 Nf6 38.Rb1
Bg4 39.Qe1 Qc5 40.Rc1 Qd6 41.Qf1 Rd8 42.Qe1 Ree8 43.Qf1 Ne7 44.Qe1 c6
45.Qf1 Ng6 46.Qe1 Qc7 47.Qf1 c5 48.Qe1 Ne7 49.Qf1 Nc6 50.Qe1 Qb6 51.Qf1 Rc8
52.Qe1 Be6 53.Qf1 Ra8 54.Qe1 Rad8 55.Qf1 Rc8 56.Qe1 Rb8 57.Qf1 Qc7 58.Ra1
c4 59.Bc1 c3 60.Nf3 Bg4 61.Ne1 Re7
Are You still awake? In this position I decided to kill him. Note that
Black still has his extra rook, but he has wasted > 9 minutes of his time.
62.f3 Bh5 63.Kf2 a4 64.b4 Rc8 65.h4 Bg6 66.Qh1 Rf8 67.g4 Nd7 68.Ng3 Rfe8
69.Bh3 Nb6 70.Ng2 Qd6 71.h5 Bh7 72.g5 hxg5 73.Bxg5 f6 74.Bh4 Qc7 75.Bf5 Bg8
76.Bg6 Bf7 77.Nf5 Re6 78.Rg1 Rb8 79.Ne1 Bg8 80.Ke2 Rc8 81.Bf2 Bf7 82.h6
Bxg6 83.hxg7+ Kg8 84.Qh8+ Kf7 85.Nh6+ Ke7 86.Rxg6 Kd6 87.Nf5+ Kd7 88.g8Q
Rxg8 89.Qxg8 Ne7 90.Rg7 Nbc8 91.Bh4 Qd8 92.Qh7 Qe8 93.Ng2 Kc6 94.f4 exf4
95.Nxe7+ Rxe7 96.Nxf4 Qd7 97.Bxf6 Rxg7 98.Qxg7 Nd6 99.Qxd7+ Kxd7 100.Nd5
Nf7 101.Kf3 Kd6 102.Kf4 Ke6 103.Bg5 Bb8+ 104.Kg4 Nxg5 105.Kxg5 Bg3 106.Kg6
Be5 107.Kh7 Kf7 108.Kh6 Bd6 109.Kg5 Ke6 110.Kg6 Be5 111.Kg5 Bd6 112.Nf4+
Ke5 113.Ng6+ Ke6 114.Nh4 Bg3 115.Nf5 Be5 116.Kg6 Bh8 117.Ng7+ Kd7 118.Kh7
Bxg7 119.Kxg7 Ke7 120.Kg6 Ke6 121.Kh5 Kf6 122.Kg4 Kg6 123.e5 Kf7 124.Kf5
Ke7 125.Ke4 Kd7 126.Kd5 Ke7 127.Kxd4 Ke6 128.Ke4 Kf7 129.d4 Ke6 130.d5+ Ke7
131.Kd4 Kf8 132.Kxc3 Kg7 133.Kd4 Kf7 134.c4 bxc4 135.Kxc4 Ke7 136.Kb5 Kd7
137.Kxa4 Kc7 138.Kb5 Kd7 139.a4 Kc7 140.a5 Kd7 141.Kb6 Ke7 142.a6 Kf7
143.a7 Kg6 144.a8Q Kf5 145.e6 Ke5 146.e7 Kf6 147.e8Q Kf5 148.Qb7 Kf4
149.Qbf7+ Kg4 150.Qeg8+ Kh4 151.Qfh7# 1-0. Barf.
Anyone out there who seriously thinks computers can win the world title
anyway?
David Hanley
: I hope more /ordinary/ (non experts) can write in and say which
: side they have taken.
Kasparov in a heartbeat, after Mike Valvo revealing he used
to do well against >2100 players when he was 2500.
Dave
Oh, yeah, he'd definitely play e4 as well. PPht!
Wei Wang
>An 1800 player would get killed. Even an expert (2000+) would
>be in trouble. Two examples of expert play from a 6-round
>tournament I played in this weekend (time limit 50/2):
>Expert A (2059) vs. Gertler
>1. e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3? Nxd4, free pawn
>(He's the second expert to make this mistake against me.)
>Gertler vs. Expert B (2085)
>1. e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bb5 a6 4.Ba4 Nf6 5.d4 b5
>6.dxe5 Nxe4 7.Bb3 Be7?? 8.Qd5, free Knight
Does this happen all the time?
What weak experts. Even playing high school chess, the
1600's would rarely blunder so early against me.
BradleeJ
>1. e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3? Nxd4, free pawn
>(He's the second expert to make this mistake against me.)
You may be right that an expert would be too low, yet, even dropping a
pawn when up a knight is not a catastrophe. That's what makes it so absurd
to think that a 2250 player wouldn't win a game at Qknights odds. A master
is a lot less likely to hang a pawn and, if he does, is more likely to
accurately assess that he's still up a knight for a pawn and is,
therefore, still in good shape.
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
Paul Powell
: Did you get knight odds in those simul games?
: It seems to me that they would have mattered to
: the World Champions chances.
No they just played as many as 40+ players.
I guess that had no effect on their chances?
R,
Paul
Paul Powell
: I don't know about 1 minute, but there is a semi-famous story about GM
: Nick de Firmian and some 2300 player (I heard it 3rd or 4th hand and
: can't swear it's true, but it sounds plausible). They were paired in
: a round of some Swiss somewhere and Nick showed up more than an hour
: late, which allowed the opponent to claim a time forfeit. Nick
: offered to play the guy with 3 minutes on his clock (vs. 2 hours for
: the opponent), since he wanted the point to win the tournament and any
: chance at all was better than a forfeit. The opponent accepted, since
: he liked the prospect of a big jump in his rating if he could report a
: win against a 2600+ grandmaster. Needless to say Nick won.
Sounds a little like an urban legend.
Once the hour is up the game is over.
The TD could and should make the claim, even if the opponent does not.
R,
Paul
Paul Rubin
Top GM's beat 2250's regularly in simul games (i.e. probably well over
50% score), so this whole thread could be interpreted as asking whether
playing 40+ players has more effect or less effect than knight odds on
the GM's chances. You can't infer the answer directly.
Paul Rubin
The TD would have to notice what was going on, in order to
make the claim. The idea was that de Firmian arrived *before*
the opponent notified the TD, and they worked out this slight
deception privately. But while TD's can't keep an eye on every
game, it seems likely that they there would be more than the
usual amount of TD and spectator attention to anything that
a grandmaster does at a small time Swiss. So your urban legend
diagnosis is also plausible. I will ask Nick about the story
sometime if I get a chance (he shows up at chess events around
here fairly regularly).
BradleeJ
>to do well against >2100 players when he was 2500.
He did well at >2100 players at Qknights odds? Any stats on + - = ?
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
David Gertler
Paul Powell
: Top GM's beat 2250's regularly in simul games (i.e. probably well over
: 50% score), so this whole thread could be interpreted as asking whether
: playing 40+ players has more effect or less effect than knight odds on
: the GM's chances. You can't infer the answer directly.
I'm not sure who you mean by top GM's but Kasparov would win about 98%
against 2250's in simul.
Now has far as what you can infer, since you not going to get a sponsor
to shell out million..... You gotta take what you can get.
R,
Paul
U31...@uicvm.uic.edu
yer when he sits down at the board across from one of the greatest tacticalpla
yers who has ever played the game. Any 2250 player knows all too well who Kaspa
rov is and what he can do, and has probably been awed by a combo or two
played by the world champ. This is probably the only thing that Kasparov would
have going for him, however. If the 2250 could keep his mind off of Kasparov
and keep it on the game he will probably win most of the games because a knight
is a *huge* hunk o' wood!Cheers, John Pandis
Tim Mirabile
> I am an 1800 player. Spot me a knight and I don't doubt that
> I can score 8/10 on you.
Now we're getting somewhere!
hnr_4...@emuvax.emich.edu
Yeah, no kidding. Why didn't anyone listen to Mike Valvo when he
made that post?? Valvo seemed to think that HE'd still have trouble with
Kasparov and knight odds...
BradleeJ
>: material, try to make it back in time.
>
>Champion. He can wait until you have all you men on the wrong squares
>and then kill you.
Yes, he'd kill me. We are talking about a master who would presumably have
at least a vague idea as to where he should put his pieces. In addition,
Kasparov can't "force" the position closed, even with white pieces. This
is difficult to do even when white is playing with all his pieces. He
simply can't do it down a knight against a rated master. Nor do I think he
would want to. Yes he's the champ but he's down knight and he's not going
to want a game going to the endgame. He's going to have to go for the
quick kill and hope he can get his pieces out of the box that much faster
than his opponent. It's sort of like a world boxing champ who has had flu
all week, he better score a knock out in the early rounds because he is
not going to have the stamina to last.
One of the points I was trying to get accross and probably didn't do a
good job of, was that the lack of a Qknight is probably less of a
disadvantage when playing something like the Evans or Kings Gambit where
the extra tempo white gains when sliding his rook from the queenside to
the kingside is at least SOME compensation for the lack of material. In
other words, how do you make the best of a bad deal.
Thanks for the lucid comments and interesting discussion.
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
Paul Rubin
Mike didn't specify the time control that he used to beat people
at, or that he'd have trouble with Kasparov at. The "K. vs. 2250"
discussion is about a 10 game match with the 2250 player getting
a full two hours per 40 moves. I think Mike's experiences
with odds games may have been at 5 minute chess since this is
the way the games he described are normally played. That is
a lot different than slow chess since the 2250 player is likely
to miss some tactics. Mike, if you're still reading this
thread can you clear up what you meant?
Paul Powell
: Yes, he'd kill me. We are talking about a master who would presumably have
: at least a vague idea as to where he should put his pieces.
Well I am a master. One move 1 I'm 100% sure of where to put my pieces.
move 2 I'm 95% sure, move 3 maybe 92%....
: Kasparov can't "force" the position closed, even with white pieces. This
: is difficult to do even when white is playing with all his pieces.
No this is very easy!? Nf3, g3, Bg2, 0-0 how can black open things up?
: One of the points I was trying to get accross and probably didn't do a
: good job of, was that the lack of a Qknight is probably less of a
: disadvantage when playing something like the Evans or Kings Gambit where
: the extra tempo white gains when sliding his rook from the queenside to
: the kingside is at least SOME compensation for the lack of material.
Well no master is going to answer e4 with e5!
I think your missing the point for keeping the game closed.
Example 1. e4 d5! 2. exd Qxd5 and Garri may lose this one.
However if Garri plays 1. Nf3 the Master choice is not as simple.
Maybe d5, maybe c5!
R,
Paul
Paul Powell
Maybe ICS could "knight-odds" as a Wild Choice.
If so an 1800 hunting we will go....
R,
Paul
Wei Wang
Sure, I'm up for it. Gimme a week's warning or so as I haven't
played chess in 3 years.
>R,
>Paul
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
BB> >Expert A (2059) vs. Gertler >1. e4 Nc6 2.d4 d5 3.e5 Bf5 4.Bd3?
BB> Nxd4, free pawn >(He's the second expert to make this mistake
BB> against me.)
BB> You may be right that an expert would be too low, yet, even dropping
BB> a pawn when up a knight is not a catastrophe. That's what makes it
BB> so absurd to think that a 2250 player wouldn't win a game at
BB> Qknights odds. A master is a lot less likely to hang a pawn and, if
BB> he does, is more likely to accurately assess that he's still up a
BB> knight for a pawn and is, therefore, still in good shape.
The point he's making is that such an error reflects a
rather poor analytical capability, and therefore such a
player would end up losing more, quickly, so the knight
would not make a difference.
But, I still think this is atypical. Most 2000 and 2100 I know do
not make such errors in the vast majority of their games.
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * We're Straight, we're fed up, now YOU deal with it
ISRAEL SILVERMAN
HN> On the side issue, with proper bladder training I think Kasparov
HN> would beat you. He would anticipate all moves your worth
HN> anticipating and deliver mate within 60 moves. Even Kasparov sure
HN> has to *think* when he plays Super GMs
I don't think so.
Didn't Spassky, in one of his books list a game he played, as a GM,
against some very low rated player (perhaps the equivalent of under
USCF 1800) and he said that it was very difficult for him as he
could barely anticipate ANY of the opponent's responses?
This is because low rated players play bad moves, the kind of moves
that are excluded by a GM's brain very early on in the process.
For people like you and me, that might be the equivalent of playing
a retreating rook move on an open file. A move with little point,
but one which you did NOT foresee, and it will take you at the
very least a couple of seconds to respond to.
---
* RM 1.3 02344 * I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous
Noam Elkies
Miguel Angel Ballicora <ball...@pilotb.msu.edu> wrote:
>In Article <3iojcc$5...@decaxp.harvard.edu> [I wrote:]
>> Wouldn't 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.Nd5(e4) NxN 3.Rb1 [or Nf3(h3)] Nf6 4.Ra1[Ng1] Ng8
>> be simpler?...
>You're right and wrong! :-)
>1.Nc3 Nf6 2. Nd5 Nxd5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ng1 Ng8 is simpler!! you're right.
>However
>1.Nc3 Nf6 2. Nd5 Nxd5 3.Ra1 Nf6 4.Rb1 Ng8 is not the same because
>white lost the possibility to do O-O-O.
You're right of course, and I of all people should have known -- shame on me.
Now how would you give Rook odds with the old convention that
White may still castle with the ghost of the Ra1? :-)
--Noam D. Elkies (elk...@math.harvard.edu)
Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
Art Wang
writes:
>
>In article <19950225191...@preiss2.bch.msu.edu>,
>Miguel Angel Ballicora <ball...@pilotb.msu.edu> wrote:
>>You don't need a special "wild" option [to give Knight odds on ICS].
>>You can play
>>1 Nc3 Nc6 2. Nb5 Nd4 3. Nf3 Nxb5 4. Ng1 Nd4 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Ng1 Nb8
>>and Voila!!!! whites lack a Knight! and move first.
>
>Wouldn't 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.Nd5(e4) NxN 3.Rb1 [or Nf3(h3)] Nf6 4.Ra1[Ng1] Ng8
>be simpler?...
>
>Just make sure to adjust the "clock" appropriately.
>
>--Noam D. Elkies (elk...@math.harvard.edu)
> Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
>
Moving the rook would preclude castling on that side.
Art Wang
Greg Kennedy
: In article <19950222.185349...@UICVM.UIC.EDU>, dha...@matisse.eecs.uic.edu (David Hanley) writes:
: > Oh, yeah, he'd definitely play e4 as well. PPht!
: Yeah, no kidding. Why didn't anyone listen to Mike Valvo when he
: made that post?? Valvo seemed to think that HE'd still have trouble with
: Kasparov and knight odds...
Sounds like a personal problem to me. If Mike can't handle Garry
frowning at Valvo's crushing moves and pulling at his face while searching
for combinations which just aren't there (because of the missing knight),
then he should avoid such a match. But as for those w/o this kind of self
defeating attitude, bring Garry on. When will people learn that there is
no magic, no secret moves that a super-GM can play- only what lies in the
position itself. I have seen GMs in action in lost (or dead drawn) positions
before, and they simply can't strut their stuff- the opponent must self-
destruct (and sometimes does)....
Greg Kennedy
Miguel Angel Ballicora
> In article <19950225191...@preiss2.bch.msu.edu>,
> Miguel Angel Ballicora <ball...@pilotb.msu.edu> wrote:
> >You don't need a special "wild" option [to give Knight odds on ICS].
> >You can play
> >1 Nc3 Nc6 2. Nb5 Nd4 3. Nf3 Nxb5 4. Ng1 Nd4 5. Nf3 Nc6 6. Ng1 Nb8
> >and Voila!!!! whites lack a Knight! and move first.
>
> Wouldn't 1.Nc3 Nf6 2.Nd5(e4) NxN 3.Rb1 [or Nf3(h3)] Nf6 4.Ra1[Ng1] Ng8
> be simpler?...
>
> Just make sure to adjust the "clock" appropriately.
>
> --Noam D. Elkies (elk...@math.harvard.edu)
> Dept. of Mathematics, Harvard University
>
1.Nc3 Nf6 2. Nd5 Nxd5 3.Nf3 Nf6 4.Ng1 Ng8 is simpler!! you're right.
However
1.Nc3 Nf6 2. Nd5 Nxd5 3.Ra1 Nf6 4.Rb1 Ng8 is not the same because
white lost the possibility to do O-O-O.
Regards,
-
Miguel
PD: I did not know that "wild" allows "odds".
BradleeJ
No, it doesn't. That's why I put the smiley face there. One can go to
extremes to keep the game closed but one can go to extremes to force it
open. My point ws only that Kasparov can't "force" a closed game and
hunkering into a KIA formation with the first 4 moves isn't going to
accomplish it. He still has to come out and play sometime.
Let me ask you. You are sitting accross the board from the highest rated,
meanest player in the world. He has given you Qknights odd. Wouldn't you
feel just a tad bit relieved if he started playing the moves leading to
the KIA instead of firing pieces and pawns at you from every direction?
If not, well, I can only surmise that different people have different
tastes.
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
Wei Wang
>Let me ask you. You are sitting accross the board from the highest rated,
>meanest player in the world. He has given you Qknights odd. Wouldn't you
>feel just a tad bit relieved if he started playing the moves leading to
>the KIA instead of firing pieces and pawns at you from every direction?
>If not, well, I can only surmise that different people have different
>tastes.
Actually, I'm not sure. If he played an opening like KIA I still
wouldn't feel too comfortable. It's a good opening to sit and build
up, accumulate positional advantages without trading too much.
>Regards.
>-Bradlee Johnson
Pascal Jasmin
-> : I'm surprised this question is even asked. I think a good 1800
-> player : would score 8/10 against Kasparov without a knight. Thats
-> at regular : time levels. In blitz or active, Kasparov might do
-> better.
PJPO...@MARLIN.SSNET.COM replied:
->
-> Your surprised by the question. I'm shocked and your reponse.
-> First what the hell is a good 1800 player? Does not 1800 = 1800 ?
-> An 1800 player would not score 8/10 against me at 30/90.
-> Kasparov would kill them.
Over the past couple of days I've played a few games against gnu chess
321 for windows on a 486dx-33 w/256K cache.
with me black 40/6 v. it white less a knight at 40/15.
I think my rating at this time control would be <1350 (against someone
with full time), and I think its Active rating at that time control
would be somewhere between 2100 and 2300.
Anyways, I'll retract my 8-2 score, and replace it with 5.5-4.5, 1800
v. Kasparov.
I'll play a game by email with you if you'd like.
Steve L. Ramos
My rating is 2247 USCF or 2250 FIDE and I have $1,000 that says Kasparov can't beat me if he spots me a knight. So let's end this debate.
BradleeJ
>wouldn't feel too comfortable. It's a good opening to sit and build
>up, accumulate positional advantages without trading too much.
Yes, if you're playing with all your pieces. However, sitting back and
conceding black material AND space just doesn't seem too wise. I mean,
down a Qknight and you give black the center? I know, I know, then you
counter-attack. It's a hell of a lot easier counter-attacking when you
have the extra knight.
Regards.
-Bradlee Johnson
Paul Powell
: I have seen a lot of uninteresting drivel in my time but this is ridiculous.
Talk about drivel! Kasparov is going to want more then $1,000 per move!
R,
Paul Powell
Matthew Bengtson
David Clough
Who the hell knows. I don't. But I don't want to be the only human on the
face of the earth who hasn't contributed to this thread, either. Now that
*everyone* has been accounted for, can we put this to rest?
Tim Mirabile
I agree, but unfortunately, $1000 isn't going to lure
Kasparov to the table. Perhaps if 1000 players were to
each put up $1000, with an eligible 2250 drawn at random
from the group. Then we'd need 1000 people to bet on
Kasparov at $1000 each. The players play for %10 of the
pot ($200,000) while the remainder is divided up among
the sponsors of the winner. Match is 10 games at 40/2
with Kasparov having white and removing his QN in each
game. Any takers?
Matthew Bengtson
Sorry my last post was screwed up. Anyway, I'd be very willing to either
play for or bet on the 2250s - looks like a surefire way to win some $$.
Matt