Talk:Chess handicap
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chess, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of chess. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. | |
| Low | This article has been rated as low-Importance on the importance scale. |
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Strategy games, an effort by several users to improve Wikipedia articles on strategy games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. | |
| Start | This article has been rated as start-Class on the assessment scale. | |
| Mid | This article is on a subject of mid priority within strategy games for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0. | |
|
Strategy games To-do:
|
||
Contents |
[edit] Quawn odds
I removed the following contribution by IP:
- Quawn odds: stronger player cannot promote pawns. Pawns that move to the final rank cannot be captured.
I didn't find any references to this on Internet and encyclopedia on chess varaint. Please provide respectable sources before adding it again! Andreas Kaufmann 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Material" handicap
The section on material handicap has two handicap which are move advantages. I think that it's better to move those two into a section named "move" handicap or the other handicaps section, as it's not really material. Fetofs Hello! 21:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
- You are right, but I wanted to preserve order of handicaps like it was played in 19th century. Also move + pawn handicap would belong to two categories. So, instead of spliting the section, I renamed it. Andreas Kaufmann 11:32, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Move + time vs. draw odds
This is sometimes used in single-game blitz playoffs but it is not exactly "odds" chess since the chances are supposed to be close to equal. (Controversy continues as to exactly what time odds produce equal chances.) Who gets to decide who plays which side is determined by tiebreak or by lot. Sadly, I wasn't able to find a definitive web reference. --Wfaxon 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Standard odds in terms of chess rating differences
I saw an article on this once that used statistics from 19th-century games. Can anyone find it? One would think that since having the first move (playing white) is worth approximately 50 Elo points, and a pawn is worth about three tempi (moves), one could approximately calculate all the standard odds, but I recall that the actual numbers were significantly different.
For the Wikipedia audience one would also need to convert any rating difference into a winning percentage difference.
Andrew Soltis wrote a book that might be relevant: Rethinking the Chess Pieces. --Wfaxon 22:48, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 07:56, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Two moves
I remember reading somewhere someone mentioning the possibility of giving one player the odds of being able to, at any one point of their choice during the game, make two consecutive moves. I can't for the life of me recall who discussed this (but I'm fairly sure it was a top-level chess celebrity) or where I read it. I think it was a hypothetical situation, but it might of course have been used as an actual handicap. Does anyone know more about this? -- Jao (talk) 13:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
[edit] An interesting remark...
...by IM Larry Kaufman:
- [...] The problem is that the Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so.[1] GregorB (talk) 22:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
