Durrr in process of losing 60k+ in a chess bet.. good month for raptor

[Grisgra]

[ QUOTE ]
as an example of an amateur getting gang raped by a GM down a rook:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242893

[/ QUOTE ]

A relevant quote from the comments section on that page:

"keypusher: <tatarch> A chess club in Manhattan had an odds tournament many years ago, which Andrew Soltis wrote a column about. If the rating difference was over 600 points, the stronger player gave odds of a rook. (There were lesser odds for smaller differentials in playing strength.) The odds-givers lost only one game out of about 40, when what Soltis described as an underrated A-player beat Arthur Bisguier at rook odds. So, I would guess an 1800 player would lose to a GM at rook odds most of the time."

[curtains]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
as an example of an amateur getting gang raped by a GM down a rook:

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1242893

[/ QUOTE ]

A relevant quote from the comments section on that page:

"keypusher: <tatarch> A chess club in Manhattan had an odds tournament many years ago, which Andrew Soltis wrote a column about. If the rating difference was over 600 points, the stronger player gave odds of a rook. (There were lesser odds for smaller differentials in playing strength.) The odds-givers lost only one game out of about 40, when what Soltis described as an underrated A-player beat Arthur Bisguier at rook odds. So, I would guess an 1800 player would lose to a GM at rook odds most of the time."

[/ QUOTE ]

Id like a little more verified proof before I go off of anything that article says. Who knows, maybe the time control was game 10 or 15 or something like that? Maybe Soltis simply has the facts wrong etc etc

[BigBiceps]

curtains,

you have any interest in playing a $50 freezeout, $10/game of 3 minute replacement chess (ie. similar to shogi with chess pieces, also called monomese or crazyhouse)?

[Varkonyi Island]

Curtains--could you beat Walter Browne if he gave you rook odds? Doubt it...

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]

Id like a little more verified proof before I go off of anything that article says. Who knows, maybe the time control was game 10 or 15 or something like that? Maybe
Soltis simply has the facts wrong etc etc

[/ QUOTE ]

Check the notes on this link it provides a whole lot more detail of what you are looking for...


Oct-21-06 keypusher:

Odds Tourney - Odds Rating Diff

On thing to keep in mind that if you go back 30+ years the world was flat, opening knowledge was minimal.
Dinosaurs roamed the earth… this one in particular..
[ QUOTE ]
They're all weak, all women. They're stupid compared to men. They shouldn't play chess, you know. They're like beginners. They lose every single game against a man. There isn't a woman player in the world I can't give knight-odds to and still beat. – Bobby Fischer


[/ QUOTE ]
So even if the rook odds story was true at that time, it might not hold true now.

[StregaChess]

[ QUOTE ]
Curtains--could you beat Walter Browne if he gave you rook odds? Doubt it...

[/ QUOTE ]
This is a joke right?
Let’s do the math. Browne’s FIDE rating is 170 points higher than my own. Curtains rating is 176 points higher than mine. Who do you think is the better player? Totally cereal question....

[Lalu]

Curtains--could you beat Walter Browne if he gave you rook odds? Doubt it...


Agreed is that a joke? I'm pretty sure curtains would beat any person on the planet 100/100 times with rook odds (and I'm quite certain I would too, and I'm like 200 points lower than curtains).

[Varkonyi Island]

I just feel like Walter Browne might pysch him out with complaints about the lighting, or something similar...

[effang]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Agreed, I would bet $5k on a 1700 player in a heartbeat vs. curtains with rook odds. If you honestly think he's a favorite in that game, I don't think you understand rating strengths (1700 being 1700 USCF not some other unknown rating system).

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't played regular time control chess for a good 15 years, but back when I did a friend of mine who was a chess tutor said he'd put me at about 1800, when I'm not being an idiot. I've also played a bunch of blitz check in the last 15 years and when not being an idiot was at about 1800 (I understand there's some ratings inflation there and so that was probably equivalent to 1600 or so USCF).

So while you guys (at least curtains, Lalu) have a much better sense than I do of what a 1700 USCF could do, I didn't think I was completely talking out of my ass, especially if this game would be a blitz game. I don't think that while I was around my best that I could take someone of curtain's caliber down 75% of the time, as one person put it, or 95% of the time, as I believe Lalu put it.

At blitz, I think the 2600 would be a favorite (if not a huge one), though that might not be true for a longer game. Even with a longer control, though, I really can't see the 1700 player straight-out WINNING 95% of the time, as was claimed.

So (and now, I *am* pulling some #s out of my ass), I'd expect a the score in a 10-game blitz match to be something like 5:5 or 6:4 in favor of the 2600, and the score to be something like 3:7 in favor of the 1700 if there was a longer control.

[/ QUOTE ]

your friend is probably being too nice to you.