How strong of a chess player is Howard Lederer?

[KyleJRM82]

High school is generally compelled, chess is not. If HS were not compelled, I'd be more impressed with people who did it.

[TexAg06]

I completely agree with Kyle's premise here. The vast majority of what impresses me about GM level play is the fact that the players have been willing to put in so much time and effort into their craft. When I was a beginning player, I was amazed at their moves and thought all GMs must be geniuses. As I've learned more about chess, I've realized that the reason GMs are where they are is largely due to hard, hard work. Of course some are smarter than others, and some are more creative than others, but their ability to play at that level is almost entirely due to the blood, sweat, and tears they've invested into the game. That's impressive.

It's like the saying goes, "if it was easy, everyone would do it".

[Montrealcorp]

i disagree a bit, GM is more than hard work imo, tho im not sure( since im not a GM) but i know some IM , GM is simply amazing to achieve , and i dont think anyone with only hard work can achieve it solely on this.

2000 need only work to attain tho and anyone should be able to achieve with some hard work, tho nothing super extravagenza.

there is a reason , only about 1500 GM in the world now and i doubt only hard work is the reason for it.

[RoundTower]

one who, if conceded any odds, would surely come out the winner

what level does this imply? At pawn odds I don't know if even Lasker would be guaranteed to beat Lasker. So Lasker must be talking about greater odds, lets say a piece. I don't think 200 hours is a massive exaggeration in that case.

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by RoundTower

what level does this imply? At pawn odds I don't know if even Lasker would be guaranteed to beat Lasker. So Lasker must be talking about greater odds, lets say a piece. I don't think 200 hours is a massive exaggeration in that case.

I've previously posted an article claiming that each pawn is worth 200 rating points in an odds match, so the piece would be 600. According to chessmetrics.com, the top 10 players in the world in 1947, when the Lasker article was written, ... wait a minute, he died in 1941. I guess it was published after his death then. Anyway, around that time period the top 10 had ratings from around 2600-2800, so it would be an even match at piece odds if the player were rated 2000-2200. To "surely come out the winner" I think we can bump that up to 2200 at the minimum.

Is that at all reasonable?

[RoundTower]

Originally Posted by ganstaman

I've previously posted an article claiming that each pawn is worth 200 rating points in an odds match, so the piece would be 600. According to chessmetrics.com, the top 10 players in the world in 1947, when the Lasker article was written, ... wait a minute, he died in 1941. I guess it was published after his death then. Anyway, around that time period the top 10 had ratings from around 2600-2800, so it would be an even match at piece odds if the player were rated 2000-2200. To "surely come out the winner" I think we can bump that up to 2200 at the minimum.

Is that at all reasonable?

I don't think I agreed with your article at the time and I definitely don't agree with the simplified statement of its premise. I don't think the material/ELO difference is linear on either axis. I think the conclusion is a little on the high side, I would guess somewhere between 1800-2100 is where you need to be to crush Lasker with an extra piece.

[ganstaman]

You think an 1950 player can crush Lasker with just piece odds? Not just have an even match, but crush? We're talking about the same Lasker? One of the top 10 (5?) best players of all time vs a 1950? There's just no way.

[RoundTower]

A piece is a lot.

I don't think there is much difference between playing say a 2400 and a 2800 when you start a piece up. Honestly I'm guessing here because I haven't tried either, but it seems to me that the massive edge a 2800 has on a 2400 doesn't translate into a massive edge at swindling weaker players in hopeless positions.

[DirtyLoDown]

Originally Posted by kevmode

I don't consider an expert chess player to be weak by any means. It is hard to become an expert in chess it doesn't happen overnight. He may not be considered one of the best chess players but to say and expert is just an okay player is silly.

Very well posted Kev.

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by RoundTower

A piece is a lot.

I don't think there is much difference between playing say a 2400 and a 2800 when you start a piece up. Honestly I'm guessing here because I haven't tried either, but it seems to me that the massive edge a 2800 has on a 2400 doesn't translate into a massive edge at swindling weaker players in hopeless positions.

2800s are insanely good, and they crush 2400s like it's nothing. I don't get how it wouldn't be many times more difficult to beat a 2800 than a 2400 if you're a 2000-rated player with an extra piece. They're so much better at tactics, among other things, that they can much more easily swindle the weaker player.

Remember when we talked about this game some time ago: Gustafsson vs Kramnik, Dortmund 2012

It's a 2800 vs a 2600, and while just 1 example, I think it does demonstrate my point.

[Montrealcorp]

i really doubt a 2000 looses games vs 2800 a piece up.

pretty simple to test, play vs houdin, fritz or w.e program a piece up...

im pretty sure i wouldnt loose imo

[ganstaman]

So it turns out they did a knight-odds match in 2008 with Rybka-something-or-other and FM John Meyer (rated 2284 then). http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaf...ow.pl?tid=4249
John won 4-0.

Larry Kaufman, my source for the rating points/handicap equivalency, seems to be giving some different numbers there.

"You are right. The problem is that the Elo equivalent of a given handicap degrades as you go down the scale. A knight seems to be worth around a thousand points when the "weak" player is around IM level, but it drops as you go down. For example, I'm about 2400 and I've played tons of knight odds games with students, and I would put the break-even point (for untimed but reasonably quick games) with me at around 1800, so maybe a 600 value at this level. An 1800 can probably give knight odds to a 1400, a 1400 to an 1100, an 1100 to a 900, etc. This is pretty obviously the way it must work, because the weaker the players are, the more likely the weaker one is to blunder a piece or more. When you get down to the level of the average 8 year old player, knight odds is just a slight edge, maybe 50 points or so."

I mean, we knew that the knight mattered more in higher level games, so I guess when he said in the article I keep referring to that the knight was worth 600 rating points, he meant that was on average for all players?

So what we have is that an 1800 is tied with a 2400 at knight odds, and a 2284 crushes a ?? (I don't know what rating that Rybka had, 3000?) with knight odds. So we know that the 2200 should crush the 2800, but the 1800 will be crushed by the 2800, putting the "crush a 2800 with knight odds" zone between 1800 and 2200, just like you said... So I think I have to take back some of what I've said before, but I do still believe the 2000 is not much better than a 2800 player without a knight, probably close to even based on the above?

[RoundTower]

Originally Posted by ganstaman

an 1800 is tied with a 2400 at knight odds,
a 2284 crushes a ?? 3000?) with knight odds.
the 2000 is not much better than a 2800 player without a knight,

yeah I think I can agree with this, or it's not too far off.

[Montrealcorp]

i still hardly disagree, 2000 isnt a noob.... even tho i dont think its a major achievement but they still know how to play.

the difference between a 2000 and 2800 isnt about anything else than complicated concept in opening middlegame and endgame with equal materials .
when a 2800 has a piece down , where does the advantage is over the 2000 ?

u think a 2000 player dont know any basics " win set up" when his a piece up ?

imo its like poker with AKQ game and the complete game of poker with 52 cards.
if u cut down the possibilities by reducing the game ( like removing cards in poker or materials in chess) , well the advantage of the skill player decreases a lot.
a 2800 can do so much with the materials he got.

the reason a 1500 can loose isnt about the pieces up or down, its about a lot of lack of knowledge he needs to know in middlegame and endings , where a 2800 could still prevail without counting the opening.

this advantage is non existant vs a 2000 rating, making the piece up pretty relevant again and probably too much of an edge imo that a 2800 can win.

as for example, a 2000 player can always at least guess 50% of the game between 2 super GM on where the games go ,etc.
the difference is the precision of forming and executing a plan or not seing a favorable ending in the middlegame.
but those are tiny technicallity where a piece up should compensate a lot for the lack of precision a 2000 have..

i mean when u see game of blitz, i see lot IM and sometimes "weaker" GM losing vs 1800 and 2000 player ( imo a 1800-2000 player in slow game is like 2100-2400 in blitz imo), and that is with equal material... now imagine a piece up with lot of times too just making sure of doing no blunder and aim at an advantageous endgame....

obv. this wouldnt apply with a 1500 because i never see even a FM loisng to those in blitz.

[ganstaman]

Originally Posted by Montrealcorp

the difference between a 2000 and 2800 isnt about anything else than complicated concept in opening middlegame and endgame with equal materials .
when a 2800 has a piece down , where does the advantage is over the 2000 ?

I don't fully get what you're saying. The general concept is right, and that's why the piece matters more to the stronger players. However, the 2800 has many advantages over the 2000 player, and these don't cease to exist in the odds game. The 2800 makes fewer mistakes, makes fewer minor errors due to greater understanding of the game, and has greater tactical vision. Why would these not come into play here?