50 Ways to Name your Masters

That's wild!

I knew odds games were played here and there, but I never heard of them being played this extensively or with such variety. I've come across odds games from the 1930's and, I think, the 1940's, but rarely anything past 1950 which gives the impression it's a dying art-form.  Now, I have to re-assess that judgment. 

A while back I had written a treatise on odds-giving called The Romance of Chess. Maybe you can look it over and comment on it (on it's flaws, that is).

 

Thanks for the information!

I quickly perused your article, batgirl. The flaws were in Vista's handling of Java, which affects the use of various chess sites. I would like to add that rooks odds as practiced in New York had White's a-pawn starting on a3. The odds requested by one weak player was two moves, not the first two moves. He wanted to play two moves anytime in the game. I refused to accept that, because it is clearly more than queen odds. After all, any capture can be made without staying on the square to be recaptured. The king is in check from two moves away. I won't tell you the nickname he used for himself. With odds giving and taking, more important than how strong a player is is (oops! Clintonian) arranging the game. The winners are called hustlers by the losers. Perhaps a loser who refuses to play for money until he hears, "Give you rook," is a hustler who lost. The term "hustler" is best applied to liars and cheaters. A GM, before achieving the title, would show up and use an alias to play for money. A famous SM would play for money as an unknown traveler. They did not fool me, but I played each of them 5 minute chess. I scored 20% against the pre-GM and the reverse (80%) against the SM. I used to be fast. In fact, I used to be able to make a sentence without the word used to. I would not call a person a hustler who does not hide his identity, rating, and playing strength.

 

Thanks. It's too bad Vista impairs some chess viewers. But the possibility that this could happen led me to add a link to the bottom of the page to a downloadable pgn of all the games - and  there're a lot of great odds games on that page, including a Pion Coiffé played by Howard Staunton.  It lists a hierarchy of typical or classical odds, but also alludes to the off-beat odds that players can contract to play, such as the wild ones you mention. Two successive moves anywhere in the game would certainly be greater than Queen odds.  

 

I agree with your definition of hustler.  But, on the other hand, there sometimes seems to be a more benign connotation to chess hustler. Didn't Humphrey Bogart refer to himself as a one-time chess hustler, simply meaning he played chess for money, usually against weaker players?  But I like the more subtle idea that the challenger is actually the "hustler." Interesting!

batgirl wrote:

My opinion of Morphy's chances aren't based on what he may or may not have known, but of what he was capable of learning - at a rate seemingly faster than anyone before or after him.  

 

If you read my article on The Romance of Chess - the Art of Giving Odds you would see that Kasparov, objectively the strongest player in history, had trouble giving odds of a pawn against an opponent probably 600 points ELO below him. Whereas Morphy had less trouble giving Knight odds to a player who considered himself Morphy's equal.  While odds-giving raises certain questions, I think the comparison should give some pause for thought.

 

---

A couple of comments:  I believe Morphy certainly could hold his own in a match with a current day player.  Over a span of games, he would learn how to defeat an opponent quickly if not right from the beginning. 

I also cringe at Kasparov being called the strongest player in history!!  He was great at preparation for a match against one player, but in tournaments he was not as strong, different kind of preparation.  Also, when he could not prepare for a match, (ie, "deep blue" by looking at previous games of his opponent he struggled!) ( the same deep blue soundly defeated by Judit Polgar so badly that they cancelled additionally scheduled games) he struggled as well, actually being beaten by the computer.

I'm not going to read anything on this post. I'll just agree with whatever point of view that Batgirl has and save me some synapse then juxtapose my two cents. I'm getting too old to remember the greatest fifty players. I know one of them would have to be Ben Finegold, the strongest player never to be a Grandmaster. His current rating is 2602. It's been as high as 2662. He tied for 1st in the 2007 US Open. His Blitz is second to none. He needs to achieve one more norm for his GM.

http://main.uschess.org/component/option,com_wrapper/Itemid,181/

He's also a great supporter of local tournaments and an all around nice guy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Finegold

http://www.chessworld.net/chessclubs/statistics_pgn_rating_chart.asp?username=Finegold,Benjamin

http://www.chessgames.com/player/benjamin_finegold.html

http://www.chessexpress.com/finegold.html

http://main.uschess.org/content/view/148/203

 

True, the meaning of hustler varies. It could mean a hard, conscientious worker or athlete. I was thinking of the term's negative use to label certain players. One player was known as "Jack the Hustler." He never argued against the name. He would get customers who refused to play for money to play for money only because of the odds he gave. They started out wanting to win. "Playing" for money can be described as earning money, especially if done honestly. A very famous American GM was known for having a clock (analog) that was defective on one side. Bogart is reported to have called up a friend that he lost to earlier in the day to have a rematch on the phone. Herman Steiner was with Bogart to win the game. That could be called either hustling or cheating. The way we use words causes their meanings to overlap. The "challenger" who loses can be the hustler since each player is trying to arrange a favorable game. The better player can easily lose to the better bargainer. It should be noted that money odds are a risky and impractical thing if they are far from even. Such odds work like the rating system. If you are rated far above the competition, you lose rating points unless you win all your games in all your events (or nearly all). For example, I gave an expert 6 minutes to 4 with 5-2 money odds ($25-10). That was practical and winnable. It was possible to recover from losing a game or two in a row. A GM who regularly beat masters and senior masters at odds of either 5-1 money or time gave me 10-1 money odds ($50-5) at 3 minute chess. He would win at a rate of 8-1. His potential to lose and to lose more than he could win was great. Any aspiring hustler out there who gives 10-1 or 25-1 to a player weak enough to beat "every game" may believe it is a sure thing. It is, in my opinion, not practical. The weak player is not strong enough to prevent your mistakes and not weak enough to never randomly play good moves.

"The weak player is not strong enough to prevent your mistakes and not weak enough to never randomly play good moves."

 

Now there's an intriguing statement if I ever heard one. Does that mean something along the line of the adage that the best swordsman in France doesn't fear the second best swordsman whom he knows how to beat, but rather the amateur who will make stupid, but unexpected, movements?

Batgirl said, "Does that mean something along the line of the adage that the best swordsman in France doesn't fear the second best swordsman whom he knows how to beat, but rather the amateur who will make stupid, but unexpected, movements?"

I means at big money odds (just as with rating odds) what is needed is not just great superiority, but no mental or physical errors. That could mean not just a blunder, but a touch move, an upset stomach, a wandering kibitzer, a defective clock, etc. The better player may be much better at chess, but not better at all these other things. A master playing a below average player is just as human. Also the player getting great odds can improve and a slight improvement can make the odds unrealistic. The better player cannot improve as much.

GreenLaser wrote:

Batgirl said, "Does that mean something along the line of the adage that the best swordsman in France doesn't fear the second best swordsman whom he knows how to beat, but rather the amateur who will make stupid, but unexpected, movements?"

I means at big money odds (just as with rating odds) what is needed is not just great superiority, but no mental or physical errors. That could mean not just a blunder, but a touch move, an upset stomach, a wandering kibitzer, a defective clock, etc. The better player may be much better at chess, but not better at all these other things. A master playing a below average player is just as human. Also the player getting great odds can improve and a slight improvement can make the odds unrealistic. The better player cannot improve as much.

---

Poppycock! A master will annihilate a club player 99% of the time in ragular chess regardless of the circumstances. Psychological advantages only count when the players are evenly matched. Giving odds like time and pieces change the nature of the game and therefore it's not "real" chess any-longer, just a variant. As with any other type of handicapping, anything can happen.

50 is alot batgirl and your history of chess is deeper than mind .I learn a few things reading this blog that I didn't know, learn something new everyday. i'll name a few of the official and unofficial player i know a little about.Emanuel Lasker,Garry Kasparov,Bobby Fischer,Paul Morphy,Susan Polar,Larry Even's And The closet Grandmaster Josh Waitzkin.

ChessDweeb says, "Poppycock!" The same reader who earlier said, "I'm not going to read anything on this post."  Giving odds becomes part of the game and affects the actual play. Money odds affects the game just as does material odds. The reason for odds is to get action. Of course, it was not stated that odds games are regular chess. By the way, another thing added to the game is doubling. This was called contra by some before backgammon became popular and the doubling cube was physically available. A player can double the stakes, but must win. The opponent has draw odds and possession of the cube (physical or not). This makes things like an exchange sacrifice interesting because the opponent is tempted to double. Possession of draw odds and the cube can be compensation or more.

You can't compare games of chance to a game of skill like chess. And yes, I changed my mind. I read everything batgirl submits. I'm admittedly addicted to her writings.

"By the way, another thing added to the game is doubling. This was called contra by some before backgammon became popular and the doubling cube was physically available."

 

I don't understand any of this. What's a doubling cube?

 

 

"The closet Grandmaster Josh Waitzkin"

 

I'm not sure what this means, but just for the record, Waitzkin achieved the IM title before he retired from active chess.

 

The Chess-masters of the past are rolling around in their graves. Dice games being used as an analogy for chess is ridiculous. Not even in the same universe. By doing so you belittle chess and everybody that plays chess. (Similar to the line in Searching for Bobby Fischer where Josh's teacher compares chess to card games.)

My candidates for some of the fifty, in no particular order, and for subjective reasons: Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, Morphy, Botvinnik, Tal, Petrosian, Smyslov, Spassky, Steinitz, Karpov, Tarrasch, Bronstein, Keres, Nimzovitch, Rubenstein, Reshevsky, Fine, Euwe, Korchnoi, Reti, Kramnik, Pillsbury, Tchigorin, Marshall. 

"Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, Morphy, Botvinnik, Tal, Petrosian, Smyslov, Spassky, Steinitz, Karpov, Tarrasch, Bronstein, Keres, Nimzovitch, Rubenstein, Reshevsky, Fine, Euwe, Korchnoi, Reti, Kramnik, Pillsbury, Tchigorin, Marshall."

 

Well, we've established that all WCs are de facto members: Capablanca, Alekhine, Fischer, Kasparov, Lasker, Morphy, Botvinnik, Petrosian, Smyslov, Spassky, Steinitz, Karpov, Euwe and Kramnik all fall into that bucket.

 

As far as Tal, Keres, Tarrasch, Bronstein, Nimzowitsch, Rubenstein, Korchnoi and Tchigorin are concerned, I can't see anything one could possibly argue against. Reshevsky, Marshall, Pillsbury and Reti... perhaps.

The doubling cube is used in backgammon to raise the stakes. It starts in a neutral position. Either player can offer the cube to double. The cube has the numbers 2,4,8,16,32, and 64 on it. The player offered the cube can accept, resign, or redouble. Whenever a player accepts the cube it is in that player's control. Accepting the cube does not require even chances, because resigning is a loss 100% of the time. For example, if accepting (in a particular type of position) means losing 3 out of 4 times, it is the equivalent of losing 4 times by resigning. (3 losses x 2 =6) - (1 win x 2 =2) = 4. The added multiple losses due to gammons and backgammons must be considered as well. In chess, doubling includes offering draw odds. However, the chances require evaluation and there are no dice. In order to control what a player is risking (control possible loss) it is safer to play without doubling as part of the rules.

Tal was also World Champion--for one year. Marshall I include because he was one of the five original Grandmasters (along with Lasker, Capablanca, Alekhine, and Tchigorin). Pillsbury I include because of his surprise 1895 victory at Hastings over Europe's finest. The other two Americans, Fine and Reshevsky, I include because both were leading World Championship contenders whose chances at the top were largely destroyed by World War Two. Reti I include because of his tremendous contribution to the development of the hypermodern movement, one of the great theorists along with Nimzovitch. The rest of the fifty gets tough; how to choose from so many? The Soviets had many wonderful players who never reached a World Championship match. I am not so familiar with the players of recent decades; someone will have to help me out there.

Relevant to this forum is Capablanca discussing Morphy and others.

http://www.chesshistory.com/winter/extra/capablanca3.html