19 ( +1 | -1 ) to tamborikasparov IS kasparov BUT a QUEEN is a QUEEN!!!!!!!!!! I believe even I could beat him if he spotted me a QUEEN !!!! and I am no great player either !!! really good question though . yours bluebabygirl
49 ( +1 | -1 ) i fear...things are not so easy. Psychology of chess is a chaos. In a hypothetical absence of a queen, a non expert player will tend to handle the situation at the main steps of the game as if the queen was there. Imagine your house for a moment without its furniture. You will still avoid the same spots and still use the same paths as before in order to move... This siuation will be a handicap for such a player against the geniouses of chess who will probably know to benefit...
18 ( +1 | -1 ) Yes a good player should winthe best way of playing the game would probably be to play an opening in which pieces exchanges are difficult to avoid - the more pieces that are exchanged, the easier the win becomes.
59 ( +1 | -1 ) Yes you are right tamborikasparov would be doing everything in his power to avoid piece exchanges and probably to strive for imbalances like opposite side castling or such like. So the good player needs to keep his (or her) head and strive for some symmetry and balance to the position - difficult if material is even, not so difficult with a queen handicap. I assume this would be played OTB - in which case the player would need to be aware of the almost overpowering presence that players like kasparov bring to the board and prepare mentally to not be overawed and keep a level head.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) reif he has no queen you could easily make him folllow your play, and i have spotted players a queen and won but they were no kasparov. i would do just as raimon said i would force trades early then i controll the whole board . i ask you what player here would not want to play kasparov given those odds ??? yours bluebabygirl
28 ( +1 | -1 ) the queen is just too much.i think he could have a chance if he only give a minor piece,but without a queen there is no way he can make any kind of advantage.the queen is the leader for any king attack duh.maybe there is some kind of psychological stuff but i believe that aint enough to win.
119 ( +1 | -1 ) Psychology is Psychology One basic assumption/question left unanswered. Who is the "good GK player"? Me? My rating is 1500+ and I can beat real masters complete with his queen. Another basic question is "What is the time control?".
All who answer your question are strong enough players who will surely put Kasparov off the board! 100%!
But this is a dificult question since there is no easy way to define the good player, especially if you don't give the time control. This is because if it is a "3-day per move", it is enough for highly intelligent novices (anyone mind considering 1200- good GK players?) to beat Kasparov.
I don't understand your idea about psychology in this matter. More than 10 years ago I think I know I will exchange all the pieces as fast as I can. And I know that he might develop his a and h pawns early. I didn't play simply by pattern. As soon as I knew chess theory, I knew the difference of 1. d4 Nf6 and 1. d4 g6.
In fact I had tried to play such game, and it is indeed impossible to win without the Queen. Because the key to win such game is to create a combination and win the game before reaching the endgame phase. But the Queen is the tool necessary to do that. It is a lot more possible to win without Rooks though...
39 ( +1 | -1 ) A good GK player is defined.... as player who instinctively knows that he must exchange the pieces. :)
About inteligence, may be Kasparov is a real genius, but something that we have to consider, is the level of complexity where such intelligence become critical. Supposed we had a quiz between 2 people with 130 and 250 of IQ, and the problem is to calculate 1+2, 3+5, 2+0 and so on, the winner might be the one with the faster hand, not necessarily the one with the higher intelligence.
38 ( +1 | -1 ) This experiment was performed already. Kasparov played against some celebrity (not a chessplayer) with a Queen less. The celebrity had a won position all the way, until she decided (probably out of respect to Kasparov) to go for a perpetual check instead of proceeding with an easy win.
So I pretty much agree with bluebabygirl
21 ( +1 | -1 ) re - to- zdrakthank you zdrak that pretty well answers the question for me !!! why even TAL would get beat starting without his QUEEN, just imagine I said TAL get beat @@@@@@@@@ ooops , lol never by me!!!!! yours bluebabygirl
48 ( +1 | -1 ) i disagreei highly disagree that Kasparov played seriously...my question was not about a routine match for public relations or commercial reasons...I was rather talking about a serious match. A match on which BOTH PLAYERS WOULD HAVE TO WIN BECAUSE TOO MUCH WOULD BE AT STAKE...On that one THE PRESSURE WOULD BE EXTREMELY HIGH, and a genious could under certain circumstances use psychological elements to increase the pressure and force the other guy to make serious mistakes...
77 ( +1 | -1 ) But you didn't assume that our good GK player is less intelligent/genius than Kasparov, don't you tambori? Well, of course he will be :) But imagine that if it be such a serious match, our good GK player will have the opportunity to gather top class players here to give him/her advices, and I think he/she will be prepared enough to win the match.
About Kasparov match against celebrities, I would love to see Kasparov being pushed out of the chessboard by Madonna. I'll put my bet on her ;)
Oh, BTW tambori, do you think bluebabygirl is too good for this candidate? Or are we looking for less 200 rating?