Is there a handicap system to equalize the game for differing skill levels?

My wife is just starting to play chess but gets discouraged easily because I always win. I was hoping that there might be a system that helps level the playing field between players of significantly different skills.

Any suggestions?

I seem to recall a recent discussion. You could try a forum search for "handicap".

odds of material is a good handicap, the more higher rated you are, the more valuable the material

If you and your wife are playing OTB, start the game with one less piece. If you're really creaming her, start with one less rook. If she can't win with an extra rook, stop drinking before each game.

Unless you're a GM. Then start with two less rooks.

Here's a list of decreasing handicaps... you should play White. Once she's able to win at one level, progress to the next until you're playing even.  :)

1. Queen (-2200)

2. b1-Knight & c1-Bishop (-1600)

3. a1-Rook (-1250)

4. b1-knight (-800)

5. c2-pawn & f2-pawn (-500)

6. a2-pawn (-200)

Likesforests,

At first I really liked your list, but then I got to thinking. Is this really helpful? I mean, you're trying to teach the game, strategy first, I would think, before tactics, etc. Doesn't playing against an opponent who doesn't have a full set of pieces really defeat that?

If the new player learns to hang with you because you have a missing bishop and they have figured out how to exploit that, what happens when you put it back on the board? The only thing they knew how to exploit was that one weak spot. Now they get creamed again. 

Seems it would be better to just use very basic openings, toss in a blunder now and then, and go from there. Just my 2 cents.

I've been teaching my girlfriend lately, and basically Ive been doing things like allowing takebacks for really obvious blunders (with an explination of WHY it's a blunder), and walking her through some of the things she should be looking at during her turn. I do not recommend specific moves until after she has made hers. This does two things, I think... 1.) It shows her how to think about each move, and where to be looking. 2.) It allows her to make mistakes, but since we usually undo them right away, it's less frustrating. She still has a chance in the game, but is still learning at the same time.

halfway through any games I play with my girlfriend her pieces seem to gain the ability to attack in very strange ways, hop across the board, through pawns, come back to life, and strangely enough, teleport through my defences next to my castled king and kill him. Go figure huh?

Dahan> At first I really liked your list, but then I got to thinking. Is this really helpful? I mean, you're trying to teach the game, strategy first, I would think, before tactics, etc. Doesn't playing against an opponent who doesn't have a full set of pieces really defeat that?

These are helpful if you're trying to level the playing field between players of different skill levels to create a challenging game. They're exerpted from a book by Larry Kauffman and are field tested. Are handicaps (of any kind) ideal for teaching chess? Probably not. When I'm teaching someone I usually show them tactics tutorials, explain opening principles and simple endgames, and find them opponents of their own skill level.

hahaha, wow, depthshaman, that's awesome, I need some advice on how to make my pieces do the same things!!!!!   Seriously, I guess in my case, I just let her do her thing.  I usually will play along blundering back most of my stuff so that she can get the excitement of winning.  However, I do try to interest her into understanding what her mistakes are and why, but in my case, it seems that she has no interest in figuring out why it is a mistake, so I just continue to play with her at a level she is comfortable with. 

As far as a handicap, I think the best handicap you can give someone is to just let them decide which move you ought to make in response to their move.  This way, not only is your opponent thinking about what s/he can do, but what she would do in response to her own move, and it won't take long before she realizes that there are two sides to a chess game.  In an underhanded way, you get the person to stop playing you, but to play the board, and in doing so, you will find the person improving both in accuracy, and in opportunity (ie strategy and tactics).  Besides, I think its fun to watch someone beat themselves a couple of times to begin to realize what is really going on.

Thanks everyone -very helpful. I'll try out a couple of these.

Likesforests,

Fair enough. Maybe I'll try that some time. Nothing really to lose I guess. :)

erad1288 wrote:

As far as a handicap, I think the best handicap you can give someone is to just let them decide which move you ought to make in response to their move.  This way, not only is your opponent thinking about what s/he can do, but what she would do in response to her own move, and it won't take long before she realizes that there are two sides to a chess game.  In an underhanded way, you get the person to stop playing you, but to play the board, and in doing so, you will find the person improving both in accuracy, and in opportunity (ie strategy and tactics).  Besides, I think its fun to watch someone beat themselves a couple of times to begin to realize what is really going on.

 Isn't she really playing herself then?

Let her win. You know what to do! ;-)

likesforests wrote:

When I'm teaching someone I usually show them tactics tutorials, explain opening principles and simple endgames, and find them opponents of their own skill level.

I have been thinking about this recently and I don't understand why we teach new players opening principles. Is there something different about our strategic objectives in the opening than in the middle game? Might it be much healthier to teach middlegame princples first and teach that the purpose of the opening is to get to a good middle game position as fast as possible? Not that I've tried this in practice.

but loomis, how do you get a good middlegame position? through a good opening.

teach the opening principles then go onto a middlegame , then endgame.

Mebeme, I'm not suggesting that you give the advice "make random moves in the opening and then following middle game principles." I'm suggesting that you teach the middle game principles: using all your pieces together, good pawn structure, good/bad bishop, good squares for the knights, king safety, rooks on open files, weak pawns, etc. And then in the opening you make suggestions and correct mistakes by pointing out how inferior moves lead to middle game weaknesses or don't strive toward middle game goals while good opening moves strive for middle game success. Failure to develop your pieces isn't wrong because it violates an opening principle, it's wrong because it doesn't strive for a good middle game position.

At the risk of totally hijakcing this thread, let me make my po int this way.

The opening position is not a good p osition to teach people chess from. It's too balanced, neither side can make a plan from the opening position. You have no strong points, your opponent has no weaknessses. So there are two ways that we have developed to cope with this.

1) learn a starndard opening. Follow the moves the masters have deemed "correct" and when you get to a position you haven't seen before apply middle game principles.

2) Aplly opening princples. This is a set of generically sound but ultimately hollow guidelines. "Develop all your pieces" "Knights before bishops" "don't make too many pawn moves." They convey very little in the way of chess understanding. What is my goal? My goal is a good middlegame position. My goal is to have a plan when I leave the opening.

In terms of teaching someone chess, the opening position just isn't a good one to teach from. A good middle game position can teach planning, strategy, tactics, etc.

Loomis,

Just to play devil's advocate, isn't strategy and planning really the heart and soul of openings? Perhaps not tactics, but certainly the first two. Seems like the opening is a great place to show the importance of things like space and time. 

Sure, if you're just saying "OK, they're going into a Sicilain Defense so you need to do this" you'd certainly be doing them no favors, but I think opening concepts are as good a place to start as any.

Granted, I'm not much of a player though, so I may be way off. :)

There was an eye opening moment for me when I realized that with good endgame skills, and the ability to recognize when a middle-game could be simplified down into a winning endgame skills, that my game would improve vastly.  I suppose one could also say that the purpose of good middle game principles is to get to a winning endgame position....