8

Yes. A grandmaster or a team of grandmasters can hold a draw or win against an engine when given time odds. I think that there is a minimum time control at which an engine can perform equally good or better than a grandmaster (without time odds). I guess this number is somewhere around 2 or 3 minutes for the whole game. Let's say for simplicity that it is ...


5

I have been handicapping student games for over 15 years, and my two favourites, if the relative strengths allow, are these: 1) White replaces queen with rook (about 4 points) -OR- 2) White replaces queen with bishop (about 6 points). Black, the handicap receiver, does not have a numerical advantage in pieces. Both handicaps are strictly worse than the ...


4

Are there any sort of equations for how much of a handicap one should receive to make a game between two players with differing Elo ratings as balanced as possible? The short answer is "No", there is no scientific equation, but it doesn't stop people from trying. For instance, our club runs an annual handicap tournament in which it tries to produce a ...


4

No scientific studies on this that I know of, but chess.com has hosted some online matches between super GMs (like Nakamura) and top engines in the world (esp. Komodo if I recall correctly). In these matches, the human GM is given one of the following odds from the starting position: An extra exchange (so rook for knight). The engine, playing Black, is ...


4

Indeed, you can think on your opponent's time. However, Your opponent may make a move you didn't expect Your calculation may be slightly worse because you had to see one ply farther Even if he played a move you expected, you may have been looking at four possible moves of his, so you only spent 1/4 of your thinking time on the move he actually made If he ...


4

Your question is stated in such a way, that the answer Yes is almost certain. And I will explain why. First of all, from mathematical (game theory) point of view, chess is an extensive-form game, which means that it has a Nash equilibrium. Taken these hard words away, this means that from a theoretical point of view, with a perfect game if a game is not a ...


3

Years ago my club in England ran a handicap tournament in the summer, which I organised and also played in. Had you and your friend been members, I think you would have played at Queen odds, or maybe Rook plus time handicap. In our tournaments the odds-givers did surprisingly well. Here is some advice based on that, although your own list is already pretty ...


3

I think something like this is the easiest solution. The set-up takes 16 moves, but then it's only two more moves to checkmate and you don't need a computer to verify it. This is almost the same as Akavall's set-up, except that a knight is posted on c4 instead of g4. [FEN ""] 1. a4 null 2. d4 null 3. h4 null 4. Nf3 null 5. Na3 null 6. Nd2 null 7. Ne4 null ...


3

Yes, at some ratio. But that ratio changes every day, in favor of the computer. Grandmasters are getting very slightly better over the years, while computers double in speed every few years. Maybe a GM could win with 100:1 time odds today, but they would need 1000:1 soon, and 10000:1 soon thereafter.


3

I'm a senior master (2400+), and I've played thousands of odds games with players up to expert level (2000+). In the 90s I was able to give a local 2100 the odds of piece-for-pawn (White removes his queen's knight, black removes his f-pawn), and I would win around 80%. In those days I would give 1800-2000 players anywhere from a knight to a rook, with a ...


2

I have played against computer engines with material odds for myself. At queen odds I win easily. Minor piece odds gave me a lot of good practice. I was losing them to start off but managed to improve my play and start winning them. I play a relatively closed game in such circumstances. and ensure my kingside cannot come under a major attack. Exchange ...


2

I'm going to answer this question from a literal interpretation - dfan's answer gives some nice background that may be what you're looking for but doesn't answer the question directly. There are three things to note about Kasparov - Deep Blue specifically: The match was actually really close. There have been accusations that IBM actually cheated by not ...


2

Note that IBM's chess computer was called "Deep Blue", not "Big Blue". It was dismantled a long time ago and current chess engines are significantly stronger than it anyway. There have been some handicap matches against computer chess engines, although I'm not aware of any very recent ones. In 2007 Rybka played a match against GM Jaan Ehlvest with pawn ...


2

I'd like to address a slightly different question: would a grandmaster be favored to win over a computer given time odds? I say this because even a weak player has some statistically significant probability of beating a world champion eventually, even if it took the rest of time. The answer to my modified question, I believe the answer is no. Programs and ...


2

Absolutely not, a human has no chance whatsoever to win against supercomputers these days, even at 10 to 1 ratio on time. Chess engines on supercomputers are so sophisticated these days that they can calculate up to 200 million moves per second, versus a human's ability to calculate 2 moves per second at most. Besides, the computer -- just like a human -- ...


2

Nope Time odds are irrelevant on the computational side. Computation of chess positions is easily parallelized, meaning additional computational resources can be brought to bear independently of time constraints. The linear component of the processing will be trivially small compared to the time controls.


2

makes no sense. Opening theory is thrown off the window the moment you give material odds. All considerations about "knowing the opening" do not apply. Play the type of game that allows you to put pressure without trading pieces. In the English opening, white has a queen. You won't be playing an English opening. I'd suggest you to go for a position with a ...


1

we have even odds when poor player myself (1200 lichess) gets 5 minutes and stronger player him (1900 lichess) gets 1 minute That's probably not too far out. As I wrote in this answer about some of the winding down at the prize-giving party after the 2019 Isle of Man: IM Lawrence Trent (~2400) was playing blitz / bullet with Caruana with 3 minutes to ...


1

The queenside pieces are less missed than their kingside equivalents, not only in defense but also in attack. Giving the kingside piece amounts to increasing the handicap. This would be most pronounced if the bishop's pawns were involved, because the square on which they originally stand is the weakest point in the uncastled position, and vacating it ...


1

This question raises a couple of topics: What is the minimum amount of time per move a player needs in order to avoid blunders, displacing the pieces, fingerfehlers, etc. When the time handicap is considerable, how do you prevent the stronger player from profiting from the weaker player's time? Is there a rating (or rating gap) beyond which additional time (...


1

Like some people have mentioned in the thread, both time and piece handicaps are popular in chess. You also can do "wager" handicaps if you're playing for cash or play-money currency. There are several chess websites that now offer handicapping to help bridge the often vast skill-level differences in chess. Out of all of them I recommend: http://www....


1

I play against kids at my high school, and they're terrible. I can handicap a queen and both rooks, but usually I still win. When you're playing against low-skill players, handicaps don't matter much.


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible