2 ms·

I'm around 2000 ELO in chess and I'd win every single game vs anyone with 4 pawns or a minor piece handicap. Being a single pawn up is usually decisive in chess

I'm around 2000 ELO in chess and I'd win every single game vs anyone with 4 pawns or a minor piece handicap. Being a single pawn up is usually decisive in chess. Having said that, this whole discussion is pointless, no one ever gives handicaps in chess, because it completely messes up the initial position. Even lacking one or two pawns at start will make it extremely hard to establish any kind of central presence. edit: Apparently kasparov gave a ~2200 guy 2 pawn handicap once, ended up winning 2.5-1.5 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317037/Kasparov-makes-it-a-knight-to-remember.html http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1317037/Kasparov-make....

gcp 13y ago
I'm around 2000 ELO in chess and I'd win every single game vs anyone with 4 pawns or a minor piece handicap. You'd only break even starting from opponents at around 2400 ELO, and would start losing about 2 out of 3 games when facing a top rank grandmaster. Being a single pawn up is usually decisive in chess. It only gives you slighly less than a 66% chance of winning (a bit more close to the endgame). There's no point in arguing from your personal beliefs here. You're vastly and utterly overconfident in your own ability. The definition of the rating system and a few million games of evidence are against you.