I’m a former tournament player although I was never highly rated. Nevertheless, I’d guess that most tournament level players are better than 95-99% of the rest of those that know the rules. I also firmly believe that a bad player simply cannot beat a good player despite the common TV trope.
So what do you do when someone that is clearly below your skill level wants to play? More often than not, I’ll try to coach the other player along as we go. Other than that, I’ll play extremely conservatively, build a strong defense and pick off pieces as mistakes are made. I usually try to give a few warnings and give mulligans as we go.
What’s your strategy for dealing with someone that can’t match your skills?
If someone with skill that different from mine wants to play me, there’s a reason they want to play. And it’s likely that their reason is also a reason for me to want to play them.
I played against my nephew for years, because he’s my nephew and I enjoy spending time with him. For most of that time, he was far below my level. By now, he’s probably about equal to me. And let me tell you, I was proud as heck the first time he beat me.
I’m not very good at chess nor am I especially interested in getting any better. If for some reason I proposed to play chess with someone who happened to be a tournament-level player, I would like for them to tell me. I would propose another pastime.
I’m no chessmaster but I’ve taught several people the basics to get them started. If don’t “play weak” to an absolute beginner they aren’t going to stick with the game long enough get past needing a cheat sheet to remind them of what each piece does every other move. Simply crushing a woefully underpowered opponent ALSO makes you look smug. If you really can beat someone with your eyes closed you really don’t need to prove it over and over. It’s also an excellent way to discourage entry into the game and drive lower level players away. Is that what you want?
That said, I’m up front when I’m teaching. Like @Nars_Glinley says, lots of coaching and encouragement to build them up to my level, then I take the gloves off. There are people I play with, as @Chronos put it, to spend time with them more than anything else.
Also -
Since I’m not a great chess player by any means I’ve been appreciative when a much better player offers to coach me as I play, as opposed to simply crushing me into dust. I don’t find being instructed “condescending” or “rude” unless the other party is being a jerk.
If you’re the sort who only enjoys chess in a competitive mode and you’re a much better player than me (which is likely, given that I don’t play in that arena) maybe we’d both be happier doing something else.
I think a brief conversation before the game begins would be desirable. Ask your opponent directly how they would like you to approach the contest, then respect their wishes.
I’m a retired chess teacher with an ELO above 2200.
It all depends who wants a game…
If it’s a young person (especially if their parents have asked me politely), I will treat it as a training game. (I let them take moves back and give advice when asked etc.) Sometimes this turns into the parents hiring me.
If it’s a club player, I’ll just play well. Hopefully they will learn something.
If it’s a drunk, I’ll make an excuse (maybe offer to play later.)
If it’s somebody who wants to see if they like chess, I’ll still play to win … but not too quickly.
In all cases, if my opponent is polite, I will do some analysis afterwards.
(N.B. I wouldn’t play with a handicap - I assume they want to see how an actual game goes.)
There is a story about a world champion who was challenged by a rich man to play regular chess games for money.
After several weeks of the rich man losing every game (but paying up ), a friend of the champion says “Let him win one - otherwise he’ll stop challenging you.”
So the champ throws a game … and the man rushes off crying “I beat the champion - now I can play something else!”
Speaking as a weak chess player myself, I can give the view from the other side. I’ve rarely had the chance to play tournament-level experts (other than a computer which was, indeed, tournament rated) but I enjoy games against very good players because even when I inevitably lose, I often appreciate the skill of the expert, which in a way is sort of an art form. For that reason, I would want an expert player to play as well as he could, and if he wanted to give me a break, it should be in the form of pointing out a particularly bad move and letting me take it back, not by making bad or mediocre moves himself.
If you’d like a training game against a tournament-level expert, then I can grant your Xmas wish!
Here’s an example of what I mean (there is one thread for the game and another for comments / analysis etc.):
My father was about 20X better than I was, and we both knew it. He’d often practice bizarre gambits (bring out his rooks and yield the entire center of the board to me) just to see what would happen. Later on he used computer chess programs for that.
Alekhine was on a long train journey and a fellow traveller asked him if he would like to pass the time with a game of chess. So Alekhine set them up and removed one of his Rooks to make it more of a challenge. The fellow traveller was indignant: “What do you mean by giving me rook odds? You don’t even know who I am?”. Alekhine replied “If I couldn’t give you rook odds, I would know who you were.”
In 2001 Garry Kasparov played a handicap match v Terry Chapman. Kasparov gave two pawns start, and had less time.
I would estimate Chapman’s rating then as about 2250 (so Kasparov wouldn’t have heard of Chapman as a player.)
Over the 4 games, Kasparov won 2.5-1.5
Note that handicaps remove the stronger player’s opening knowledge.
I am not a good chess player, but when I want to play with my friend that IS good, he removes one of his pieces (usualy rook). Still he beats me every time, but that way both of us gets to enjoy the game.
I could see that being tricky with giving up pawns, but with handicapping a rook, I’d think much of opening theory would require little adjustment at least for the first half dozen or so moves. Ok, if your usual castling rook is removed, maybe that throws a spanner into the works, but I’d still think opening knowledge could be helpful. (Though totally unnecessary if you’re playing someone where you feel rook odds are fair.)
I like playing chess but I am a lousy player. I was in the high school chess club, and once a fellow member said “I need an ego boost, wanna play?” Honestly, they weren’t being mean, just teasing, we all knew my skill level was poor.
Indeed. I would expect that, with rook odds, even a moderate-level club player would be able to beat the best computers. It can’t be all that hard to just make even trades until such time as your extra rook is enough to start forcing uneven ones, and your advantage snowballs. Would that be a fair assessment?
If it’s a much lower level player, it’s not too much to assume they’ll likely blunder a piece away during play or the GM will manage to find themselves winning before the rooks even come into play. The one analysis I saw was that roughly 200 * piece value = ELO difference, so rook odds would be about 1000 ELO, with the caveat that it doesn’t scale linearly; the lower rated the two players are, the lower the multiplier would be (so, for a 1500 player, rook odds might be fair to a 700 or 800 player to even out the advantage, not a 500 player.) With Alekhine at 2700, though, that would mean playing someone around 1700 would make it even with rook odds.
But that’s just one analysis I read (I’d have to dig to find where I read this). I’m pretty sure I’ve seen a chart somewhere, as well, estimating these things. I suppose you could always simulate it with something like Stockfish playing itself at various estimated ELOs.
