![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I removed the following contribution by IP:
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)
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. F e tofs Hello! 21:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...by IM Larry Kaufman:
This is an important article. I didn't know it existed! I would always call a game like this "odds" rather than "handicap". I'm going to see if there are appropriate redirects and, it not, create them. Krakatoa ( talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing I would like to see in this article, if it is known, is how the various handicaps relate to differences in ratings. For instance, does a handicap of a minor piece compensate for a 400 point difference in rating? One pawn for a 100 point difference? etc. Bubba73 (talk), 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Are there any sources for this:
I doubt that something like this is really played, since white wins immediately: 1. e3 2. Bd3 3. Qh5+ g6 4. Bxg6 hxg6 5. Qxg6 checkmate. Andreas Kaufmann ( talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have raised the quality assessment of this article to B-class because it meets the six B-class criteria:
SyG ( talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The game moves currently in the article are clearly impossible: 12. Bc6+ Kb6 13. Qd3 Rxd4 14. Qb7+ (from d3) Kd6 (from b6). The diagram purporting to be the position after 13... Rxd4 is also wrong, since it shows the queen and king already on b7 and d6.
On another subject, is it necessary for the sentence beginning "There are many kinds of such handicaps, such as material odds, extra moves..." to be in the article twice? 91.107.147.158 ( talk) 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
I removed the following contribution by IP:
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)
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. F e tofs Hello! 21:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
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)
...by IM Larry Kaufman:
This is an important article. I didn't know it existed! I would always call a game like this "odds" rather than "handicap". I'm going to see if there are appropriate redirects and, it not, create them. Krakatoa ( talk) 19:10, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
One thing I would like to see in this article, if it is known, is how the various handicaps relate to differences in ratings. For instance, does a handicap of a minor piece compensate for a 400 point difference in rating? One pawn for a 100 point difference? etc. Bubba73 (talk), 19:55, 21 July 2008 (UTC)
Are there any sources for this:
I doubt that something like this is really played, since white wins immediately: 1. e3 2. Bd3 3. Qh5+ g6 4. Bxg6 hxg6 5. Qxg6 checkmate. Andreas Kaufmann ( talk) 19:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)
I have raised the quality assessment of this article to B-class because it meets the six B-class criteria:
SyG ( talk) 08:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
The game moves currently in the article are clearly impossible: 12. Bc6+ Kb6 13. Qd3 Rxd4 14. Qb7+ (from d3) Kd6 (from b6). The diagram purporting to be the position after 13... Rxd4 is also wrong, since it shows the queen and king already on b7 and d6.
On another subject, is it necessary for the sentence beginning "There are many kinds of such handicaps, such as material odds, extra moves..." to be in the article twice? 91.107.147.158 ( talk) 01:56, 23 January 2010 (UTC)