I liked the isolated h pawn. I also didn't like the open line for the queen on move 1. He's got to castle queen side so I figured its an extra tempo to get her out of the way if center pawns remained.
There's an argument for your way too.
Here are a sample of Stockfish scores for some different options removing white pieces:
Remove both bishops and f/g pawns: -7.7
Remove Queen bishop, King knight, and f/g pawns: -7.6
Remove all pawns: -5.9
Remove combo of rook+bishop: -6.7, -7.2, -7.0, -7.3
The best option seems to be removing both bishops and b/g pawns: -8.0
Wow, what I realize from this is that you should not aim for one big liability but aim for multiple different liabilities. In this case, you want to make the opponent's king unsafe, remove their attacking potential, and put them on the defensive too. Hence queen bishop, king knight + f and g pawn makes sense. The both bishops and b and g pawns removes attacking potential too.
Removing all 8 pawns sounds interesting when playing against a human. They would have no idea on how to proceed given all their normal thought processes are broken.
Crazy that ‘remove all pawns’ shows the lowest impact while it’s definitely the scenario I would least like to face.
ETA: to clarify, I mean ‘to be put in’ and not ‘to play against’.
I feel like a rook is actually a bad choice here, just given how slow they are to become impactful and how offensively lopsided this game would be. I’d go with either all the pawns or the two center pawns and both bishops.
I'm not exactly sure who it was but some GM was playing with odds against a lower rated opponent in a youtube video and they actually found it easier to win with no pawns because of how fast their pieces can become active
I can see low rated players getting crushed easily with this setup as you can build serious threats so quickly and they'll likely miss them while the GM will of course spot every attack and counter it.
Rook is def a bad idea here. I think removing all the pawns activates the rooks though. Id definitely remove the bishops. And i think id go for the c and f pawns. F pawn weakens the king, and the c pawn gets used to fuck with some of my setups, so id like it gone.
>I feel like a rook is actually a bad choice here, just given how slow they are to become impactful
They are slow to be impactful on attack, but removing a rook means that your opponent can't castle on that side, hugely reducing their defensive choices.
nah kingside rook and bishop is good because you can queenside castle and start an attack on his kingside immediately (for example e4 e5 qh5 is actually a good threat) and his missing rook and bishop means he can't do much about it (he'll have to spend a few extra moves finding defenders for the h and g-pawns)
I just tried it against [chess.com](http://chess.com) 3200 rating. That mf just checkmated me in bullet style. I'm not a good player but holy moly i got absoutely destroyed
It's much harder than it sounds. The side without pwns will develop quickly, and can easily win if you fail to spot an aggressive fork/attack. The only way to win is to leverage those pwns and turtle up, then slowly strangling your opponent.
Stockfish is gonna be much weaker than even a pretty decent player in this scenario. It's not really designed to make good comeback moves in a dead lost scenario, it'll just make the "safest" losing moves rather than go for tricks.
Ya i said that in another comment that i can easily beat stockfish with no queen but there is zero chance i beat magnus or any gm with no queen. Stockfish just seems to give up sometimes in these situations. but no pawns was actually a lot harder than i thought it was gonna be, way harder than no queen
Yeah, i wouldn’t call it giving up tho.
Stockfish just plays the best move assuming you will play the best moves too.
Whilst a GM would make the position complex assuming you won’t play the best moves.
I don't know about you, but against me stockfish first developed real fast, then sacked a rook when I castled and then choked me while my pieces couldn't participate in defense because they were all stuck behind my own pawns.
It took me a few tries but i beat stockfish with no pawns. This is a lot harder than beating stockfish with no queen lol https://lichess.org/5mFc7VoY/white#107
I reckon playing Magnus or someone like that would actually be tougher than stockfish here as they would try to set traps etc to have their best chances while stockfishes optimal play is often easier to play against with a big advantage. Maybe if you up the contempt a lot for stockfish then it becomes the toughest option - should still be beatable for decent players but if you make silly mistakes it will take advantage of them.
Nah give me Magnus everyday over stockfish. Magnus is 2800 while stockfish 3200+.. Neither learned from this position but the computer can calcuate it way way faster
The computer of course plays objectively better chess but my point is that in a very losing position the computer usually just plays the least losing/longest path to checkmate as it assumes perfect play from it's opponent. Magnus against weaker players would likely not play like this but would instead try to set traps and do things which may not be objectively best against perfect play but which will often work against weaker players. Stockfish doesn't do this kind of thing with it's normal programming.
If a weak player screws up stockfish will punish it as will Magnus but Magnus might be more likely to trick you into a major screw up as he would deliberately play for them. It's about the only time a human can sometimes have advantage over the machines - when they're taking advantage of the human weaknesses of their opponents rather than just playing objectively.
You haven't, you have no idea of what you're talking about. Super GMs can occasionally draw stockfish even without odds, and they sure as hell don't struggle agains them with queen odds. Post a video or it didn't happen.
You don't get what they're saying. Anyway I can say from experience that it's usually easier to play stockfish with a huge advantage than playing a super gm with the same huge advantage.
King side knight, Queenside bishop, c and f pawn.
Bishop + knight is the least strong minor piece combo, and the center and king are going to be very weak, whatever pawn structure they choose. Also the c and f pawn being removed doesn't help them by speeding up their development.
>Bishop + knight is the least strong minor piece combo
Is that really true? I would have said two knights because that's the only minor piece combo insufficient to checkmate with bare kings.
Well then just don't take the last pawn. Just two weeks ago I witnessed german FM Johannes Tschernatsch mate a 2200 opponent with 2 knights and king vs king and pawn. It is possible.
Furthermore, the endgame doesn't matter for sure in a game where you start -8 points of material.
Depends on the circumstances of course but the probability of a game where bishop + knight is the best combo is lower.
At least that's what I learned. For example to maximize the bishop pair I was told to try and leave the opponent with bishop + knight.
Your situation is very specific, king + 2 pawns versus king wins, king + bishop versus king doesn't, yet a bishop is better than 2 pawns at the start of the game.
Improbable and impossible are 2 completely different things. We are all human, we can all blunder. Sometimes our wires get fried and we do some real stupid stuff. Saying impossible is just false.
Are you pretending to be slow?. Humans can name mistakes in positions where they are completely winning. That doesn't change the evaluation of the position. Theoretically it is impossible to force a checkmate with 2 knights and a king.
It's possible for there to be a mating position on the board with king and two knights. It's impossible to force an opponent to get into such a position, as /u/smithnugget pointed out.
If bishop + knight are the strongest minor piece combo, why are you choosing to leave them with that? Wouldn't removing double bishop or double knight would be better by that logic?
Gotham had to play without a kingside tool and three kingside pawns in his most recent video against the NBA players and stockfish evaluated it as dead lost for black
As White, I would remove Black's f, g, and h pawn, as well as the h8 rook and immediately go for an attack on the wide open king.
As Black, I would remove both of White's Bishops and both center pawns. It just feels right to me.
Probably both their bishops so they don't have a lot of maneuverability in the mid game and probably their f and d pawns so my e4 pawn is uncontested and gives me good central board control and also helps open up the position making my uncontested bishops more powerful.
Both bishops and both central pawns. You get complete control of the center with your own pawns and won't be harassed by bishop pins or fianchettos.
I'm sure there are savvier choices that let you play for crazy tactics, but my way sounds like such a comfortable game that it's hard to resist.
The b & f pawns and the c bishop and g knight.
The b pawn to make queen side castling useless.
The f pawn, the same for king side castling, without opening the g file for his rook.
The c bishop, because it has more potential by going to b2 and eyeing my king side.
The g knight, to weaken his king side potential attack.
Both bishops and the central pawns.
The open lines they get without their central pawns is mitigated by not having bishops.
My plan would be simple: dominate the center with my pawns and support with my minor pieces. I think that would make it difficult for my opponent to coordinate an attack, since they lack the pawns and bishops to contest the center. I would slowly squeeze for more space once my pieces are adequately deployed
I don’t care what stock fish says but I’m getting rid of both knights and two pawns. Don’t know why but I always blunder a piece to a knight at the worst possible time. Plus I’m going for a queen trade as soon as possible
King side bishop, Queen side Knight, b and f pawns.
Bishop is the best protector on the king side. I don't want to remove the king side Knight as well because that allows castling immediately. B pawn because it renders queen side castling useless. If the f pawn also not being there my bishop is very powerful now even if my opponent manages to castle king side. If not, then I blast open the centre and attack.
This needs to become a new chess variant... ban chess or something... take turns deleting each others pieces, whoever has the least remaining material on the board gets to ban next until both sides have banned 8 points of material.
I'd take the king's bishop and king's knight, as well as the e and d pawns. The reasons are the king's knight is a great attacker, sometimes the main early attacker, the e and d pawns are central pawns, the pawns leave the king immediately open, and the king's knight is the best guard piece to protect him. So basically what I'm saying is: I'd take away the immediate and long term best defensive pieces from the king.
Id bargain to start with white and pay 5 points for it.
With my remaining 3 points i would remove their F and G pawn and remove my own E pawn.
Then i would deliver checkmate with Queen to h5.
(Obviously joking)
When removing blacks pieces (since that’s what the NBA players were allowed to do against levy) I would go with F and G pawn, kingside bishop, kingside knight. (+12.5)
Here are a sample of Stockfish scores for some different options removing white pieces:
Remove both bishops and f/g pawns: -7.7
Remove Queen bishop, King knight, and f/g pawns: -7.6
Remove all pawns: -5.9
Remove combo of rook+bishop: -6.7, -7.2, -7.0, -7.3
The best option seems to be removing both bishops and b/g pawns: -8.0
Both bishops and f and g pawns
I agree with the Pawns, but I like to remove the King's Knight and keep the Bishop, Qh5 is a checkmate threat.
Why f and g vs e and f?
I liked the isolated h pawn. I also didn't like the open line for the queen on move 1. He's got to castle queen side so I figured its an extra tempo to get her out of the way if center pawns remained. There's an argument for your way too.
Thanks for the answer.
[удалено]
The incorrect reply!
Here are a sample of Stockfish scores for some different options removing white pieces: Remove both bishops and f/g pawns: -7.7 Remove Queen bishop, King knight, and f/g pawns: -7.6 Remove all pawns: -5.9 Remove combo of rook+bishop: -6.7, -7.2, -7.0, -7.3 The best option seems to be removing both bishops and b/g pawns: -8.0
[redacting process]
Agree, a touch weaker but more practical for a human. I'd choose the same.
Wow, what I realize from this is that you should not aim for one big liability but aim for multiple different liabilities. In this case, you want to make the opponent's king unsafe, remove their attacking potential, and put them on the defensive too. Hence queen bishop, king knight + f and g pawn makes sense. The both bishops and b and g pawns removes attacking potential too. Removing all 8 pawns sounds interesting when playing against a human. They would have no idea on how to proceed given all their normal thought processes are broken.
Crazy that ‘remove all pawns’ shows the lowest impact while it’s definitely the scenario I would least like to face. ETA: to clarify, I mean ‘to be put in’ and not ‘to play against’.
Least like to play as?
Yes. Clarified my post
someone watched levys video
Yep!
Man, that one dude on the right was so pissed to lose. Super competitive. Right after it happened, he looked so ready to play again.
You’re talking about professional nba players of course they’re competitive as hell lol
I feel like a rook is actually a bad choice here, just given how slow they are to become impactful and how offensively lopsided this game would be. I’d go with either all the pawns or the two center pawns and both bishops.
I'm not exactly sure who it was but some GM was playing with odds against a lower rated opponent in a youtube video and they actually found it easier to win with no pawns because of how fast their pieces can become active
I can see low rated players getting crushed easily with this setup as you can build serious threats so quickly and they'll likely miss them while the GM will of course spot every attack and counter it.
Rook is def a bad idea here. I think removing all the pawns activates the rooks though. Id definitely remove the bishops. And i think id go for the c and f pawns. F pawn weakens the king, and the c pawn gets used to fuck with some of my setups, so id like it gone.
Fuck the c pawn
>I feel like a rook is actually a bad choice here, just given how slow they are to become impactful They are slow to be impactful on attack, but removing a rook means that your opponent can't castle on that side, hugely reducing their defensive choices.
nah kingside rook and bishop is good because you can queenside castle and start an attack on his kingside immediately (for example e4 e5 qh5 is actually a good threat) and his missing rook and bishop means he can't do much about it (he'll have to spend a few extra moves finding defenders for the h and g-pawns)
All 8 pawns. Sure, they get quick development, but I just trade and win.
I donno how anybody, even stockfish or magnus is gonna beat me with no pawns
Probably with a checkmate.
I just tried it against [chess.com](http://chess.com) 3200 rating. That mf just checkmated me in bullet style. I'm not a good player but holy moly i got absoutely destroyed
It's much harder than it sounds. The side without pwns will develop quickly, and can easily win if you fail to spot an aggressive fork/attack. The only way to win is to leverage those pwns and turtle up, then slowly strangling your opponent.
I checkmated stockfish with no pawns https://lichess.org/5mFc7VoY/white#107
Stockfish is gonna be much weaker than even a pretty decent player in this scenario. It's not really designed to make good comeback moves in a dead lost scenario, it'll just make the "safest" losing moves rather than go for tricks.
Ya i said that in another comment that i can easily beat stockfish with no queen but there is zero chance i beat magnus or any gm with no queen. Stockfish just seems to give up sometimes in these situations. but no pawns was actually a lot harder than i thought it was gonna be, way harder than no queen
Yeah, i wouldn’t call it giving up tho. Stockfish just plays the best move assuming you will play the best moves too. Whilst a GM would make the position complex assuming you won’t play the best moves.
I don't know about you, but against me stockfish first developed real fast, then sacked a rook when I castled and then choked me while my pieces couldn't participate in defense because they were all stuck behind my own pawns.
It misses nothing and punishes everything while casualy throwing everything forward.
It took me a few tries but i beat stockfish with no pawns. This is a lot harder than beating stockfish with no queen lol https://lichess.org/5mFc7VoY/white#107
The good thing about stockfish is that can actually play against him, try it out and tell us!
Heres the game, not gonna lie this took a few tries but finally beat this guy https://lichess.org/5mFc7VoY/white#107
I reckon playing Magnus or someone like that would actually be tougher than stockfish here as they would try to set traps etc to have their best chances while stockfishes optimal play is often easier to play against with a big advantage. Maybe if you up the contempt a lot for stockfish then it becomes the toughest option - should still be beatable for decent players but if you make silly mistakes it will take advantage of them.
Nah give me Magnus everyday over stockfish. Magnus is 2800 while stockfish 3200+.. Neither learned from this position but the computer can calcuate it way way faster
The computer of course plays objectively better chess but my point is that in a very losing position the computer usually just plays the least losing/longest path to checkmate as it assumes perfect play from it's opponent. Magnus against weaker players would likely not play like this but would instead try to set traps and do things which may not be objectively best against perfect play but which will often work against weaker players. Stockfish doesn't do this kind of thing with it's normal programming. If a weak player screws up stockfish will punish it as will Magnus but Magnus might be more likely to trick you into a major screw up as he would deliberately play for them. It's about the only time a human can sometimes have advantage over the machines - when they're taking advantage of the human weaknesses of their opponents rather than just playing objectively.
Not really how it works tho, i can beat stockfish easily without a queen but i bet there is zero chance i ever beat magnus without a queen
No you wont lol, I think ive seen hikaru struggle against stockfish with Queen odds
No you havent. Im a 1200 and i can beat stockfish almost every time without a queen, i can do it in under 40 moves to.
You haven't, you have no idea of what you're talking about. Super GMs can occasionally draw stockfish even without odds, and they sure as hell don't struggle agains them with queen odds. Post a video or it didn't happen.
Look, destroyed stockfish without a queen as you probably dont believe me https://lichess.org/omNhYc1f/white#75 Ill try with pawns next
I beat stockfish with no pawns too https://lichess.org/5mFc7VoY/white#107
You don't get what they're saying. Anyway I can say from experience that it's usually easier to play stockfish with a huge advantage than playing a super gm with the same huge advantage.
Lol try it out, it's actually much harder than I thought.
Not gonna lie this took about 8 trys but i finally beat stockfish with no pawns lol https://lichess.org/5mFc7VoY/white#107
Nice, it took me longer than it should have to realize you need to (at least I needed to) lean heavy into the pawns.
I thought it was gonna be a lot easier tbh lol
I think this is probably the worst choice
I have tried it against the computer. You may very well be right.
I dont think there is a wrong answer, but this has to be the easiest win.
it is. cant promote, cant create threats. cant hide king to safety.. pretty easy to trade down when their king is in the open
All the pawns for sure
Replace Queen with Pawn
That would be an illegal position 🤓
King side knight, Queenside bishop, c and f pawn. Bishop + knight is the least strong minor piece combo, and the center and king are going to be very weak, whatever pawn structure they choose. Also the c and f pawn being removed doesn't help them by speeding up their development.
>Bishop + knight is the least strong minor piece combo Is that really true? I would have said two knights because that's the only minor piece combo insufficient to checkmate with bare kings.
No, not true at all as far as I know. Bishop + knight vs 2 knights often favors the side with the bishop.
End game isn't the only part of the game
Well then just don't take the last pawn. Just two weeks ago I witnessed german FM Johannes Tschernatsch mate a 2200 opponent with 2 knights and king vs king and pawn. It is possible. Furthermore, the endgame doesn't matter for sure in a game where you start -8 points of material.
Depends on the circumstances of course but the probability of a game where bishop + knight is the best combo is lower. At least that's what I learned. For example to maximize the bishop pair I was told to try and leave the opponent with bishop + knight. Your situation is very specific, king + 2 pawns versus king wins, king + bishop versus king doesn't, yet a bishop is better than 2 pawns at the start of the game.
You can checkmate with 2 knights
No you can't
You technically can but you can't force it against a proper defense
So you are telling me with 2 knights and my King, I can not checkmate a lone king ?
Yes that's what I'm telling you
Wrong
It’s literally impossible if your opponent knows how to defend it.
Improbable and impossible are 2 completely different things. We are all human, we can all blunder. Sometimes our wires get fried and we do some real stupid stuff. Saying impossible is just false.
Are you pretending to be slow?. Humans can name mistakes in positions where they are completely winning. That doesn't change the evaluation of the position. Theoretically it is impossible to force a checkmate with 2 knights and a king.
It's possible for there to be a mating position on the board with king and two knights. It's impossible to force an opponent to get into such a position, as /u/smithnugget pointed out.
If bishop + knight are the strongest minor piece combo, why are you choosing to leave them with that? Wouldn't removing double bishop or double knight would be better by that logic?
Least strong, or weakest
Haha I misread
Take out the c-pawn and the f-pawn, then get rid of both bishops.
Either the 8 pawns or "b" and "g" pawns plus two minor pieces.
Gotham had to play without a kingside tool and three kingside pawns in his most recent video against the NBA players and stockfish evaluated it as dead lost for black
That was what inspired this question!
As White, I would remove Black's f, g, and h pawn, as well as the h8 rook and immediately go for an attack on the wide open king. As Black, I would remove both of White's Bishops and both center pawns. It just feels right to me.
Probably both their bishops so they don't have a lot of maneuverability in the mid game and probably their f and d pawns so my e4 pawn is uncontested and gives me good central board control and also helps open up the position making my uncontested bishops more powerful.
Someone here just finished watching Gotham's NBA video
Literally any combo that works and you can beat stockfish
lose my a pawn and remove their queen
You got that idea from gothamchess last video uh ?
Both bishops and both central pawns. You get complete control of the center with your own pawns and won't be harassed by bishop pins or fianchettos. I'm sure there are savvier choices that let you play for crazy tactics, but my way sounds like such a comfortable game that it's hard to resist.
Plus, the open lines they get with their central pawns absent are mitigated by the lack of bishops.
Light -squared bishop and the king.
Kingside rook, f,g,h pawns, push your own g and h pawns into victory
I'd remove the 2 tall black pieces and 2 pawns
All of the pawns! Make it very hard for them to break through my defensive line as I advance and slowly encapsulate their position with my juicers
The b & f pawns and the c bishop and g knight. The b pawn to make queen side castling useless. The f pawn, the same for king side castling, without opening the g file for his rook. The c bishop, because it has more potential by going to b2 and eyeing my king side. The g knight, to weaken his king side potential attack.
Getting rid of all your opponents pawn make yours invincible, imagine trying to block a pawn chain with knights and bishops
Thats what I would do. No need to fear promotion either.
I agree, Kingside rook and bishop. Assumption is that castling that side's now illegal? Alternatively, remove my a-pawn and the opposing queen.
Both bishops, both central pawns.
Both bishops and the A and B pawns. This way, when I castle, I do not have to worry about a pawn storm and sniper bishops.
can i turn the queen into a pawn
Remove all pawns
The queen, and I remove my A-pawn to compensate the points.
Both bishops and the central pawns. The open lines they get without their central pawns is mitigated by not having bishops. My plan would be simple: dominate the center with my pawns and support with my minor pieces. I think that would make it difficult for my opponent to coordinate an attack, since they lack the pawns and bishops to contest the center. I would slowly squeeze for more space once my pieces are adequately deployed
Hear me out - all 8 pawns.
I'd remove 8 points of Elo.
Every single pawn! Idk if it’s optimal but would be fun
all pawns...or maybe the 5 middle pawns (leaving 2 on the q side) and the kb.
I don’t care what stock fish says but I’m getting rid of both knights and two pawns. Don’t know why but I always blunder a piece to a knight at the worst possible time. Plus I’m going for a queen trade as soon as possible
King side bishop, Queen side Knight, b and f pawns. Bishop is the best protector on the king side. I don't want to remove the king side Knight as well because that allows castling immediately. B pawn because it renders queen side castling useless. If the f pawn also not being there my bishop is very powerful now even if my opponent manages to castle king side. If not, then I blast open the centre and attack.
All the pawns.
This needs to become a new chess variant... ban chess or something... take turns deleting each others pieces, whoever has the least remaining material on the board gets to ban next until both sides have banned 8 points of material.
All pawns, easy. No pawns king is easy to attack.
I'd take the king's bishop and king's knight, as well as the e and d pawns. The reasons are the king's knight is a great attacker, sometimes the main early attacker, the e and d pawns are central pawns, the pawns leave the king immediately open, and the king's knight is the best guard piece to protect him. So basically what I'm saying is: I'd take away the immediate and long term best defensive pieces from the king.
First instinct was all the pawns, but now I'm thinking take 5 pawns (c,d,e,f,g) and the kingside bishop. Turtle up and trade.
e,f,g pawns and the h rook, they’re going to get checkmated very quickly💀
f- and g-pawn. Corresponding knight and bishop. Good luck defending your king starting from move 2.
Actually, guess you could castle on move one. Still doesn't feel great.
All pawns
All Pawns
Id bargain to start with white and pay 5 points for it. With my remaining 3 points i would remove their F and G pawn and remove my own E pawn. Then i would deliver checkmate with Queen to h5. (Obviously joking)
Does anyone know how many points of material the king is worth?
When removing blacks pieces (since that’s what the NBA players were allowed to do against levy) I would go with F and G pawn, kingside bishop, kingside knight. (+12.5)
I will remove all of their pawns.
Their queen, and I give them an extra pawn
Definitely all 8 pawns.
Are you doing this to try to equalize against a specific player who is learning or just want to get specific situations?
Here are a sample of Stockfish scores for some different options removing white pieces: Remove both bishops and f/g pawns: -7.7 Remove Queen bishop, King knight, and f/g pawns: -7.6 Remove all pawns: -5.9 Remove combo of rook+bishop: -6.7, -7.2, -7.0, -7.3 The best option seems to be removing both bishops and b/g pawns: -8.0