From: mad4@ellis.uchicago.edu (Bill Maddex)
Subject: Re: Gaprindashvilli's strength (was re: Fishcer with odds)
Reply-To: mad4@midway.uchicago.edu
Organization: Pranksters for Peace
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 1992 00:13:09 GMT

In article <1992Nov10.150907.24463@cbnewsj.cb.att.com> edd@cbnewsj.cb.att.com (ed.knowles) writes:

>I assume that "nearly won" means he lost. Also rook odds are much easier than
>knight odds. Rooks generally don't impact the game until lines are opened in
>the middlegame. Think how many games are decided before rooks are even developed
>Knights, however are usually the first pieces out and are effective even in
>closed positions. Personally, I think Fischer's challenge was ridiculous and
>was ignored for just that reason. Fischer may be stronger than i think he is,
>but he's certainly is not and has never been as strong as he thinks he is or
>was. Fischer is Fischer, but a knight is a knight.
>
>					Ed Knowles

I won't get into cheap arguments about who's a stronger player, but I will
say this:  I know more about giving odds than you.  I'd stake a fair amount
of money that I've got one of the biggest collections of odds games outside
of a major chess library, and I've got some rare sources that a lot of them
don't have.  I've also played tons of material odds games versus *humans*,
so my conclusion is based on experience as well.  And, cheap arguments aside,
someone who was a *much* stronger player than you phrased it something like
this: "With rook odds we move into borderline area where normal play becomes
impossible for the odds giver...while at knight odds one may hope to outplay
the opponent gradually, this absolutely can't be done at rook odds."
					(Zukertort, from a long series on odds
					play in Neue Berliner Schachzeitung,
					1872, my translation)

Especially these days, and especially against a master strength opponent, 
the odds giver can not hope for the kind of wipe out at rook odds that we
assosciate w/Morphy, Steinitz et al.  When strong players give odds these
days, they have to avoid open games and tend toward weird, unorthodox
stuctures that don't lend themselves to book analogies.



In article <1992Nov10.002009.18009@midway.uchicago.edu> quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu writes:
>You're crazy if you think even a perfect chess machine could give knight
>odds to a 2300 player.
__
Doug Quale
quale@saavik.cs.wisc.edu

I may well be crazy, but you need a better argument than that.  I'd bet a 
perfect move generator could give Fischer (at his peak) or Kasparov pawn and
two moves and not lose.  I'd also bet it could give a 2300 player a knight and
score about 80%.  If you want some real sense of what odds mean, look up 
Soltis' colum "the Great Equalizer" from the fall of '82.(pretty sure of the
date.  It's also in Karl Marx Plays Chess.)  I'll be immodest and say I think
I'm about 2300 strength, and I'm damn sure a lot of people could give me a 
knight.  In the Midwest Amateur team I dropped a Knight in the first round in
eight moves against a 1600 player and won.  I had nothing for the piece, and
I've won games against 1800 players down comprable amounts, e.g. two pawns
and an exchange for nothing.

Fischer's a goon, and his comments may be more sexist bravado than anything
else, but I'd bet he knew what he was talking about at the time.

MADNESS




Newsgroups: rec.games.chess