How much Odds to play against a Super GM?

Let me contribute a few thoughts on this matter, with the side-goal of not sounding like the most arrogant poster 

I agree with those who say that the number of elo points that a certain amount of material is equivalent to is difference at different levels. having watched games between say a 400 and an 800 player, i can tell you that when one player wins a piece, the odds of who will win don't shift perceptibly. however, if a 2600 player dropped a piece against a 2200 player, they'd be in some serious trouble.

my own results at odds (over thousands of games) indicate that a fair match (50-50) for me (2400) at q odds is an 800 player, at rook odds a 1200 player and at knight odds an 1800 player (uscf ratings, +/- 100 points depending on various factors). in terms of the question of super-gm, the original poster is not only meaning someone over 2700, but pretty much 2800 fide i think. so a very select group. i think a 2150-2200 player would be about an even match for kasparov or carlsen at piece odds, and an underdog against rybka. honestly, i'd be scared to play them at piece odds, but i guess if there were some motivation and a couple hours on my clock, i might be a favorite. at two pawn odds, i'd favor any of those three over me.

so a knight might be worth about 600 points at high levels, and then less among players who blunder pieces frequently.

moving on to time odds-- in my opinion they are not really worth very much. as long as the gm has time to physically move the pieces, they have the mental discipline to simply think on your time. at 5:1 i wouldn't have a chance against those players. at 60:15 even less. i'd probably score 0 out of 10 against carlsen if he had a motivation to try to win the black games, while in blitz maybe i'd score a lucky point.

i think one thing that some ppl (for example the poster who has played blitz with darwin laylo) are forgetting is that even among gms there is a huge disparity in skills. if you can score 1 out of 10 against a gm rated roughly 2500 with those 5 to 1 odds, realize, he would lose just as badly to Carlsen at those odds. i think the select group of carlsen, kasparov, fischer, rybka is essentially untouchable by anyone under 2500 if they have at least 1-2 minutes on their clock, but i may be exaggerating slightly because of my own fear. maybe the line is at 2450 or 2420...

another data point that may be of some interest (sorry i'll leave you to do the research on google yourself) are some clock simuls that garry gave against strong gms. i think he faced the german and israeli national teams (in other words, all players who are stronger than 2500), and won the matches convincingly, essentially giving 4:1 and 6:1 time odds, depending on the number of games.

one last anecdote; i remember once playing blitz with a talented player of about 1600. i had 30 seconds and he had a few minutes (as many as he liked). he wanted to win badly but gave up after 20 games or so... and i'm not good at blitz.

let me reiterate, i'm only trying to provide info. i hope it wasnt arrogant of me to mention the blitz games with a 1600, but i don't have a lot of data on time-odds.

I didn't take it arrogant at all and appreciated your input

"if you can score 1 out of 10 against a gm rated roughly 2500 with those 5 to 1 odds, realize, he would lose just as badly to Carlsen at those odds" is a good point.

I have the same feeling about time odds -- that at a certain point it just doesn't matter, like I said before I don't think even 60:1 time odds against a 2800 player would do me much good... like you said as long as they have the mental discipline to think on my time it just wouldn't matter.

David, when players have already posted that they can beat Kasparov/Carlsen/etc. with only time odds, I don't think you can seem arrogant following that act. 

Thanks for your input David, it's interesting.

I'm 1200ish on Chess.com (don't have an official rating) and highly doubt I could consistently beat an IM with rook odds.

I also think that queen odds to a 800 player against a 2400 wouldn't prove so successful, since the rookie would likely fall on an opening trap before the queen comes to action.

Those are only general impressions though, you certainly have much more experience than me.

I think a knight odds would do the trick, if i had at least an hour to play the game.

With the same material, i think i would need at least half an hour to play a game but the super GM could not be given more than 1 minute...

"By the way, call me a purist, but to me piece odds is not chess!"

No Sir! I will not call you a purist! Piece handicaps have been employed since long before the first time-piece was introduced to the game.

Hey thats a game of chess isn't it?

Piece odds can be annoying for the higher rated player, because it in some ways forces them to be aggressive which makes their strategies less flexible. Positional crushes will be much less useful.

Yes, however, I think that psychologically odds of any kind are detrimental to the side that accepts the odds. In a way, you have accepted defeat before the game even started.

Bump!

Hi Friends,

Is there any way I can create an "Odds" tournament. Meaning, the total players would be say 10 of which 5 will be between  say 1500-1600 and other 5 would be between 1900-2000. The match will be paired against these 2 groups at "Knight Odds" meaning the higher rated team will not have the Knight.

This is basically to see if the general thumb rule of ~300 Rating points is worth a Knight etc. and of course it should be fun and a closely contested match up .

Any suggestions or comments will be helpful.

Thanks and Cheers,

Arun

I would be pretty confident about achieving at least a draw against Kasparov, Carlsen or Rybka, but only if I could give them king odds...