Odds games

[Christopher Kreuzer]

I've recently been reading the book The English Morphy? - The Life and Games of Cecil De Vere, First British Champion (Hindle and Jones, Keverel Chess Books, 2001) and it included an account of De Vere's improvement in playing strength through the various classes of players according to what odds they would be given by a master. For example, a a "Rook odds" player would play a master with one of the master's rooks removed, a "Knight odds" player with a knight removed, and so on (through classes such as various 'exchange' combinations), up to "pawn and move", which I think was the highest rank of odds players, after which you played with level material.

My questions are:

(1) Is there a full account of this system written anywhere?
(2) Why was this system used and why and when was it discontinued?
(3) Does anyone still use this system or play games with odds?
(4) Is it possible to estimate grade differentials for various odds used?

My answer for (2) would be that odds games are not good for beginners trying to learn opening theory, but might have advantages for other reasons (such as assessing playing strength). For (3), I've never played games at odds against anyone (unless you count losing a piece or pawn in the opening and playing on). Regarding (4), I suspect that for anything more than a pawn, you can only really estimate how low the grade of the opponent would have to be to be unable to carry out a "technical win" against a competent player (below a certain level, you can nearly always assume a player will miss simple threats and drop material).

I don't have a clue as to when the system was discontinued, but presumably there was a debate in the chess literature of the time that would help answer question (1), though if there is an overview account of this anywhere, published more recently, it would be great if someone could point it out.

I would be interested to know if anyone has ever (in more recent times) tried odds games for assessing someone's strength, or for teaching juniors. I would guess not, but you never know.

EDIT: Found some answers here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_handicap

I wonder how much material I would have to remove from Rybka (or any chess engine) before beating it... I probably don't want to know.

[Paul Littlewood]

With regard to odds games and juniors I recently was invited to give a simultaneous in a friend's school. It was clear to me that the players were not very strong so I offered them all knight odds but so as to not insult them I gave them the choice of whether they accepted this or started level. Interestingly quite a few did not accept which I thought was quite enterprising for 11-14 year olds !

[Richard James]

Christopher

The Wikipedia article mentioned the odds match between Kasparov and Terry Chapman from a few years ago.

I often play odds games against young children so that they can gain confidence by winning games as well as learning attacking skills. Most children prefer this but some want me to play with all my pieces.

Once a fortnight I have a lesson with a 10-year-old girl who attends a local primary school which is consistently near the top of the league tables both locally and nationally. An IM, who is a gifted teacher and communicator as well as a really nice guy, has been teaching chess there for many years. I always play her with black giving odds of queen and two rooks, but she can only beat me with a lot of help such as retractions when leaving her queen en prise. I'd assumed she was one of the weaker players in the club but the other week her father told me that she won a prize for being the best player in the school last term.

It's clear that she is just trying to memorize what she's been taught rather than trying to consider alternatives, look ahead and make choices.

If you've never visited a primary school chess club you'd be amazed at how weak most of the players are.

[Matthew Turner]

Richard,
Very interesting comments, as always.
On the Terence Chapman match, the result may be a bit misleading (3.5-2.5 to Kasparov). Terry had been preparing hard for the match for six months with Hodgson and others. This lead to the interesting situation where Terry's opening theory (where one side has two extra pawns) was probably better than Kasparov's. Had Terry just turned up at the board as a 2200 with two extra pawns then I think he would almost certainly have lost 6-0 to Kasparov.

[Michael Jones]

Wasn't the Chapman match four games, with Kasparov winning 2.5-1.5?

I've visited many primary school chess clubs, and seen how weak the majority of the players are. Q+2R odds is no problem; the only way I can give them any sort of chance is by deliberately playing badly - hanging pieces (and even then the kids probably won't take them), declining to capture ones my opponents leave en prise, and if all else fails offering a draw in a completely won position.

At the opposite end of the spectrum, I'd guess that at knight odds a top GM would probably still have an edge over me. Rook odds maybe about even, and at queen odds I'd start to fancy my chances. No doubt Rybka could safely give me a queen and probably quite a bit more!

[Matthew Turner]

Michael,
Sorry, you are right about the result of the Terry Chapman match.

[Neill Cooper]

I've visited many primary school chess clubs, and seen how weak the majority of the players are. Q+2R odds is no problem

I have learnt to start by removing all my pieces and leave the junior with K,Q, 2R. That way no matter how hard I try I cannot win, which for some can be quite demoralising. They also learn how to win games of chess.

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

I think material odds games simply lost favour to time odds when clocks became more common.

The way I play weaker juniors is play them in a normal game, give them the odd snippet of advice during the game (e.g. "I can take your queen if you move it there") and to let them win! If you do it right then they think they beat you fairly, albeit with half a dozen or so moves taken back, and it seems to increase their confidence. This is especially useful if you're playing the person who's got the bye in a tournament, as they will generally be on a very low score and need a bit of a boost.

[Paul Bielby]

In my games with juniors I don't give odds. This gives them a chance to learn proper openings. However when I am winning easily I will offer the kid a chance to swap sides and continue from there (Some take this opportunity, some don't). Sometimes this can happen more than once in a game.

I always insist on the kid taking the winning side when there is a checkmate (either in one move or more) available. That way they can always claim that they have beaten 'Sir' and can go off with a smile on their faces!

[Neill Cooper]

However when I am winning easily I will offer the kid a chance to swap sides and continue from there (Some take this opportunity, some don't). Sometimes this can happen more than once in a game.

Nice idea! Thanks

[Jon D'Souza-Eva]

Some parents I've spoken to have taken up the idea of swapping sides to see if the stronger player can fight back again, but they do it when their children have become better chess players than them!

[Michael Jones]

I've visited many primary school chess clubs, and seen how weak the majority of the players are. Q+2R odds is no problem

I have learnt to start by removing all my pieces and leave the junior with K,Q, 2R. That way no matter how hard I try I cannot win, which for some can be quite demoralising. They also learn how to win games of chess.

Thanks for the suggestion. Usually when I'm coaching beginners, the first thing I teach them after the basic moves is how to mate with Q+R or 2R vs K, for the same reason: they can actually win games from some positions. Most of them quickly become highly adept at taking en prise pieces, but are unable to convert a material advantage, however large, into mate.

[John Townsend]

Christopher asked:

(1) Is there a full account of this system written anywhere?

Staunton was the odds-giver par excellence. His Chess Player's Companion gives much information on games at odds.

(2) Why was this system used and why and when was it discontinued?

As chess was often played for a small stake, it made the chances more even. At the same time I suspect it provided the "professionals" with a vehicle for fleecing their punters. I expect it was also simply to make it more interesting for the stronger player. Another reason, which should not be overlooked, is that it enabled strong players, e.g. Lewis and Staunton, to protect their reputations by avoiding playing even.

Best wishes,

John Townsend,
Howard Staunton Research Project:
http://www.johntownsend.demon.co.uk/ind ... age324.htm

[Christopher Kreuzer]

As chess was often played for a small stake, it made the chances more even.

Thanks for the pointer to the Staunton book!

Talking of playing games for stakes, there was an interesting bit in an article recently (on CHESS and WWII, by John Saunders in the November 2010 issue of CHESS - I need to say where I'm getting this information from, so no quips about commissions, Alex!) about the players onboard ship travelling to the Olympiad in Argentina in 1939 playing "hundreds of games with each other, usually at stakes of a Belgian franc (about three-halfpence) a time" (that is John quoting B. H. Wood, by the way).

That made me realise that moderate gambling over chess games was more common than I think it is now, unless I've been moving in the wrong chess circles!

[Michael Jones]

That made me realise that moderate gambling over chess games was more common than I think it is now, unless I've been moving in the wrong chess circles!

Try turning up at Budapest Keleti station - some bloke there collared me into a game, putting up 200 forint (about 60p) for it. Since I'd only just arrived in Hungary I didn't have any forint, so I put in 70 (euro) cents as being worth roughly the same. I lost, which was either a lesson in the ills of gambling or a lesson not to attempt to play chess after drinking rakija (incredibly strong Hungarian spirit).