5 ms·

Two bishops is still too much. An above average amateur chess player around ELO 2000 should regularly beat the world champion with two extra bishops.

fragsworth 13y ago
More often than not, a loss of a single piece in chess results in resignation. You have to make a serious blunder to lose a game when you're ahead by one piece. I think a more accurate analogy would be playing a game of chess without a pawn, or two, maybe, but the game is so heavily based on opening lines that some might argue if you have a pawn handicap, it shouldn't be called chess.
- gcp 13y ago
  From the perspective of a player over 400 ELO stronger than his opponent, such blunders do happen regularly.
- S4M 13y ago
  My FIDE rating is slightly above 1900. I think that with 2 bishops I'll beat Magnus Carlsen easily, simply because I could sacrify one bishop for some attack and still be ahead in terms of material. But with only one bishop ahead at the start of the game, I doubt it will be enough.
  - gcp 13y ago
    You would lose a longer match. (You're the second player posting here who seems to drastically underestimate the effect of the ELO difference. That said, 900 ELO difference is so far out on the Bell curve that I wouldn't want to take bets on this one.)
  - sanoli 13y ago
    2 bishops is a massive advantage in chess, but I still don't think a 1900 player could beat Magnus. Maybe a 2200 player?
    - gcp 13y ago
      2 bishops is IIRC about 700 ELO-equivalent, so this looks like a good estimate to me. (That said, 700 ELO difference is >99% winning rate, so we're in outlier territory, and as said in the other post, that would prevent me from taking bets :)
    - S4M 13y ago
      Well, I could easily beat Carlsen in an endgame with one bishop and one pawn up. So if I were to start a game against him with two bishops, I could develop my pieces normally and then sacrify a bishop for a pawn to throw an attack at his king (somewhere in f7 or h7 for example). Then I'll have the initiative and still a material advantage, so what could he do? I know I am not so good, but I am confident I am not gonna fall into cheap tricks. Also, I think some part of the difference in strength between Carlsen and I lies in his massive knowledge of the openings, which will be gone if I start the game with a two bishops handicap.

fragsworth 13y ago

More often than not, a loss of a single piece in chess results in resignation. You have to make a serious blunder to lose a game when you're ahead by one piece. I think a more accurate analogy would be playing a game of chess without a pawn, or two, maybe, but the game is so heavily based on opening lines that some might argue if you have a pawn handicap, it shouldn't be called chess.

gcp 13y ago
From the perspective of a player over 400 ELO stronger than his opponent, such blunders do happen regularly.
S4M 13y ago
My FIDE rating is slightly above 1900. I think that with 2 bishops I'll beat Magnus Carlsen easily, simply because I could sacrify one bishop for some attack and still be ahead in terms of material. But with only one bishop ahead at the start of the game, I doubt it will be enough.
- gcp 13y ago
  You would lose a longer match. (You're the second player posting here who seems to drastically underestimate the effect of the ELO difference. That said, 900 ELO difference is so far out on the Bell curve that I wouldn't want to take bets on this one.)
- sanoli 13y ago
  2 bishops is a massive advantage in chess, but I still don't think a 1900 player could beat Magnus. Maybe a 2200 player?
  - gcp 13y ago
    2 bishops is IIRC about 700 ELO-equivalent, so this looks like a good estimate to me. (That said, 700 ELO difference is >99% winning rate, so we're in outlier territory, and as said in the other post, that would prevent me from taking bets :)
  - S4M 13y ago
    Well, I could easily beat Carlsen in an endgame with one bishop and one pawn up. So if I were to start a game against him with two bishops, I could develop my pieces normally and then sacrify a bishop for a pawn to throw an attack at his king (somewhere in f7 or h7 for example). Then I'll have the initiative and still a material advantage, so what could he do? I know I am not so good, but I am confident I am not gonna fall into cheap tricks. Also, I think some part of the difference in strength between Carlsen and I lies in his massive knowledge of the openings, which will be gone if I start the game with a two bishops handicap.