I recall hearing the f pawn is the toughest single pawn handicap, because of the potential for early-game attacks on the f2 to h4 diagonal. No cite though, don’t remember where I heard it.
Sorry, you’re right. “Prone to blunders” doesn’t really matter here, since we’re assuming perfect play on both sides from this point out.
Ahuh?
You’re right too. But up two pieces, white wins easily given a player who can play perfectly.
Ahuh?
White is up a Queen and has a threat on c7. So I’m at a loss to know what you to guys are talking about and what there is to agree with.
I wasn’t agreeing with him, per se. I was agreeing that the rules were “perfect play” according to the OP, which I dismissed, given that black blundered the queen. Of course white has a winning advantage regardless of the quality of black’s play after the blunder.
Ok, to clarify. I was agreeing that white is up a Queen-Knight exchange. I (and others) had said earlier white was up a queen.
The next move in our sequence is presumably white’s knight captures queen. After that, black’s knight captures white knight. So, our tally is both white and black have captured a pawn, white has black’s queen, black has white’s knight, and there’s no immediate exchanges to consider after that play.
Then I said it doesn’t matter about black being “prone to blunders” because we are supposed to assume perfect play from the setup in the OP onwards. So we should not take into consideration the likelihood that black is an utter chess moron who will continue making stupid moves like that.
Did I understand the question correctly?
No. Black’s knight on C6 is in no position to take White’s knight on D5.
You might want to have the position before you on the board before you talk about it… :dubious:
Ah!
Oh, crap. I had reflexively assumed 3 … Nf6 there when I saw a knight move. Wow. That’s much worse for black.
Hey, no need to rub it in! 
At any rate, I guess I gave black even more credit than they deserved. (Or perhaps I had the right position yesterday and Mince’s comment distracted me just enough to forget what we were talking about since then. Actually, that’s not true. I did read Nf6 there.)
Assuming that the sequence is followed by 4. Nxd5:
Black must now choose between two not-so-good moves if he wishes to avoid 5. Nxc7+, forking the rook and king. The first is 4. … Rb8, which still doesn’t prevent 5. Nxc7+, winning the pawn (though I’m not sure white would bother, since it might be better to develop pawns and pieces with the material advantage) and which forces 5. … Kd8 anyway. Or, black can simply go with 4. … Kd8, which ends the fork, and guards the pawn, while, of course, exposing the black king to attacks up the d-file.
It’s a stupid position, the result of a huge black “blunder”. Why is it even being contemplated?
Since we’ve all agreed that Black’s 3) … Nc6 is a blunder …
Perusing through MCO-13 (very old), I see that the Center Counter is good for setting up a position White maybe wasn’t looking for and may not be familiar with, and yet still be sound for Black … so there’s some value in surprise here I suppose and maybe a chance to cop a win here and there …
Even with the main line of 3) … Qa5, White gets their 4) d4 in harmlessly which opens up their game … whilst Black is still looking at a semi-serious cramped position … Black still struggles to obtain anything close to equality as the game moves into the Middle part …
I think White maintains their slight pull …
Yep, my mistake. I played 3. …Nf6. But Nc6 just makes the scenario even more certain. Of course white will always win with perfect play a queen up. It’s like asking if 3 can ever beat 5 in a battle of highest number.
No, no it isn’t. As Mijin pointed out in post #4, chess is *not *a “solved” game – no-one knows the outcome of more than a fraction of possible game positions.
On the other hand, I believe Black’s chances (under perfect play) are almost certainly 0, it’s even possible that someone here with a powerful enough chess engine and enough CPUs could come back to annouce that it is definitely won for White.
If I remember correctly, the players agreed to remove different pairs of pawns in each of the four games.
As Mijin remarked, the f-pawn is probably more of a handicap than others (since it weakens the king and gives no benefit - like opening a file for a rook.)
I looked but was too lazy to post, they were:
As WHITE:
-a2 -e2 in one game, and, -a2 -d2 in the other
As BLACK:
-a7 -h7 in one, and, -a7 -b7 in the other.
I think Kasparov was compensated somewhat by the developmental advantages therein, I would have liked to have seen him play from -a2 -f2 or something worse.
I’m calling time on the analysis my computer is running, at a depth of 43 (it has been paused for most of today), it scores the position as +13.57. FWIW the position it envisions does not have white obviously close to mate.
Playing Stockfish vs Stockfish with 5 minutes for 40 moves, white mates on the 41st move (of course we already know that with perfect play neither player can force mate for at least 43 moves)
My own guess on this is that though black is obviously at a sizeable disadvantage, both players still have so many options that the game can be extended for many moves.
FWIW, I tried it on an old program I have that I consider very good by my standards of play, computer playing both sides, and black resigns within a few moves. In this example, black resigns after 8 moves. This is hardly definitive but it does provide yet another opinion that black is in pretty poor shape after (3. … Nc6)!
1. e4 d5
2. exd5 Qxd5
3. Nc3 Nc6
4. Nxd5 {16s} Kd8 {5s}
5. Qf3 {22s} Nf6 {2:09m}
6. Nxf6 {+12.56/9 18s} exf6 {-12.48/13 27s}
7. Qb3 {+12.56/9 51s} Bd7 {-12.48/10 17s}
8. c3 {+12.52/10 13s} *
I, for one, am amazed that Black can continue limping along for that long. I mean, the average chess game is only 40 moves long (though admittedly, most games aren’t played all the way out to mate).