Why there is no interest in Computer with odds Vs Humans match?

[MikeB]

...they are old players between the ages of 50 to 66 years of age.

... when did 50 to 66 become old ? ...glad I missed that email...

;>)

[pilgrimdan]

...they are old players between the ages of 50 to 66 years of age.

... when did 50 to 66 become old ? ...glad I missed that email...

;>)

I am 63 but don't feel old … maybe when I am 73 I will …

[MikeB]

...they are old players between the ages of 50 to 66 years of age.

... when did 50 to 66 become old ? ...glad I missed that email...

;>)

I am 63 but don't feel old … maybe when I am 73 I will …

haha - I wonder if chessqueen realizes that she is hanging out with a bunch of so called "old men" on this forum?

[Guenther]

...they are old players between the ages of 50 to 66 years of age.

... when did 50 to 66 become old ? ...glad I missed that email...

;>)

I am 63 but don't feel old … maybe when I am 73 I will …

haha - I wonder if chessqueen realizes that she is hanging out with a bunch of so called "old men" on this forum?

Well, 'chessqueen' in reality is just pichy aka Jorge L Pichard aka Georges and several other accounts, by no means a 'lady'... ;-)
(and he is also beyond 50)

[lkaufman]

...they are old players between the ages of 50 to 66 years of age.

... when did 50 to 66 become old ? ...glad I missed that email...

;>)

It was when USCF and more recently FIDE decided 50 and up are "Seniors". I won the World Senior when it was defined as 60 and up, which is at least reasonable, but calling a 50 year old a "Senior" is silly in my opinion. I still played chess quite well at age 60, not so well now at age 71.

[lkaufman]

I might be able to play a top engine with rook odds against the following player - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Dreyer.

In a six game match, how do you think he'd fare?

My guess is that he will win 2 or 3 and draw the rest. Rooks odds are very tough for the engine.
I was able to pull this win off after losing 3 straight, and I'm nowhere near an FIDE Master. I did give a bishop back , but still had enough to win. The early exchanges of the Queens on move 8 helped me tremendously in this game. Single core/thread - that was enough for me.

[pgn][Event "Rook Odds "] [Site "Mac-Pro.local"] [Date "2019.07.05"] [Round "-"] [White "michaelbyrne"] [Black "McCain"] [Result "1-0"] [TimeControl "120+4"] [FEN "1nbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQk - 0 1"] [SetUp "1"] 1. e4 e6 {+9.33/23 +120} 2. Nf3 d5 {+9.12/25 +118} 3. exd5 exd5 {+8.74/25 +116} 4. d4 Nf6 {+8.78/23 +116} 5. Bd3 Bd6 {+8.41/23 +114} 6. Bg5 h6 {+8.56/24 +102} 7. Bh4 Qe7+ {+8.16/24 +94} 8. Qe2 Qxe2+ {+8.67/24 +92} 9. Bxe2 Ne4 {+8.63/25 +78} 10. Nbd2 f5 {+12.67/25 +76} 11. Nxe4 dxe4 {+11.60/27 +69} 12. Ne5 Bxe5 {+11.89/26 +70} 13. Bh5+ Kf8 {+17.86/26 +71} 14. dxe5 g5 {+15.84/26 +64} 15. Bg3 f4 {+16.03/27 +63} 16. O-O-O Ke7 {+16.12/27 +64} 17. Bg6 fxg3 {+15.77/27 +62} 18. hxg3 Nc6 {+15.45/32 +50} 19. Bxe4 Nxe5 {+14.52/28 +50} 20. f4 gxf4 {+14.48/25 +50} 21. gxf4 Nf7 {+14.44/27 +49} 22. Rde1 Kf6 {+13.63/25 +46} 23. Rh5 Rg8 {+15.88/25 +44} 24. Bd5 c6 {+16.96/22 +46} 25. Bb3 Rxg2 {+20.06/24 +45} 26. Bxf7 Kxf7 {+19.83/26 +45} 27. Rxh6 Bf5 {+18.80/29 +20} 28. Re5 Bxc2 {+18.23/26 +15} 29. Rd6 Ba4 {+15.92/28 +6} 30. Rd7+ Kf6 {+14.94/21 +7} 31. Rxb7 Rg1+ {+13.51/23 +4} 32. Kd2 a6 {+11.79/23 +4} 33. b3 Bb5 {+13.73/23 +6} 34. a4 Bf1 {+8.67/25 +4} 35. Rb6 Bg2 {+6.30/23 +4} 36. Re1 Bf1 {+4.27/22 +4} 37. Rxc6+ Kf7 {+3.34/24 +4} 38. Ke3 Rg8 {+1.09/22 +4} 39. Rxf1 Ra8 {+0.11/22 +4} 40. Kd4 a5 {+0.04/23 +4} 41. Rb6 Ra7 {+2.18/21 +5} 42. Kc5 Ra8 {+0.00/25 +4} 43. Kb5 Ra7 {+0.00/27 +4} 44. Rc1 Rd7 {+0.00/42 +4} 45. Kxa5 Ra7+ {-1000.20/38 +4} 46. Ra6 Rb7 {-1000.16/37 +5} 47. b4 Re7 {-1000.13/39 +4} 48. Rc4 Kg8 {-1000.13/37 +6} 49. b5 Rf7 {-1000.10/38 +5} 50. Rac6 Ra7+ {-1000.11/37 +7} 51. Kb6 Rf7 {-1000.10/39 +8} 52. a5 Rf5 {-1000.11/34 +10} 53. a6 Kg7 {-1000.08/38 +11} 54. a7 Rf8 {-1000.07/43 +12} 55. Kb7 Rf7+ {-1000.07/47 +13} 56. Rc7 Rxc7+ {-1000.06/74 +15} 57. Rxc7+ Kf6 {-1000.05/122 +16} 58. a8=Q Kf5 {-1000.04/245 +19} 59. Rf7+ Ke4 {-1000.05/65 +20} 60. Qa4+ Ke3 {-1000.05/71 +21} 61. Re7+ Kf3 {-1000.04/245 +23} 62. Qe4+ Kg3 {-1000.03/245 +27} 63. Rg7+ Kf2 {-1000.02/245 +31} 64. Qg2+ Ke3 {-1000.04/245 +33} 65. f5 Kf4 {-1000.04/245 +34} 66. Qg4+ Ke3 {-1000.04/245 +36} 67. Re7+ Kd3 {-1000.04/206 +36} 68. Qe4+ Kc3 {-1000.04/245 +37} 69. Rc7+ Kb2 {-1000.03/245 +41} 70. Qd3 Ka1 {-1000.02/245 +45} 71. Rc2 Kb1 {-1000.01/1 +49} 72. Qb3+ Ka1 {-1000.01/1 +53} 73. Ra2# {White mates} 1-0 [/pgn]

I'm not familiar with the engine "McCain", but every strong engine should know that rooks are more valuable in the endgame and so you don't trade queens voluntarily when down a rook. Komodo would surely not do this. By the way, it would help if you mention the time limit and your own rating, estimated or actual.

The trade was not in the endgame and even Komodo might trade the queens a rook down if you catch it just right. Once black played 7....Qe7, the queens were coming off...
Komodo 12.3 single core analysis

Code: Select all

dep	score	nodes	time	(not shown:  tbhits	knps	seldep)
 28	 -6.18?	63.4M  	0:52.06	O-O O-O? 
 28	 -6.13!	61.6M  	0:50.51	O-O O-O Be6! 
 28	 -6.25?	55.9M  	0:45.65	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 28	 -6.17?	51.6M  	0:42.15	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 27	 -6.11 	48.2M  	0:39.51	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Be6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 c6 Rae1 O-O Kd2 Nd7 Ne2 Nf6 Nf4 Ng4 Re2 Bd7 c3 a6 Bc2 Bc8 Nd3 Nf6 Kc1 Ne4 Nd2 Nf6 Ne5 Be6 f3 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 
 27	 -6.11?	39.4M  	0:32.43	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 27	 -6.06!	38.1M  	0:31.42	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 27	 -6.14!	37.4M  	0:30.84	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 26	 -6.20 	34.4M  	0:28.36	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Be6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 c6 Rae1 Nd7 Kd2 O-O Ne2 Nf6 Nf4 Ng4 Rhf1 Bd7 c3 g6 Ne5 Nxe5 dxe5 Bb8 e6 Bxf4+ gxf4 Bxe6 Bxg6 fxg6 Rxe6 
 26	 -6.17?	30.0M  	0:24.81	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 25	 -6.11 	26.9M  	0:22.22	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Be6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 a6 Nd1 O-O Ne3 Re8 c3 Nd7 b4 Nf6 Ne5 c6 Kd2 Bc8 f4 Ne4+ Bxe4 dxe4 a4 Bc7 Rae1 f6 Ng6 Kf7 
 25	 -6.08?	24.2M  	0:20.00	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 25	 -6.01!	23.6M  	0:19.49	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 25	 -6.06?	19.6M  	0:16.44	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 25	 -6.02!	19.3M  	0:16.14	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 24	 -6.08 	18.5M  	0:15.49	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 c6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 Be6 Rae1 Nd7 Nd1 O-O Ne3 Re8 c3 Nf6 a3 Bc7 Ne5 c5 Bc2 a6 Nf3 Bg4 Kd3 c4+ Kd2 
 24	 -6.07?	17.1M  	0:14.32	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 23	 -6.01 	16.4M  	0:13.73	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 c6 Bg3 Nxg3+ hxg3 Be6 Rae1 O-O Nd1 Nd7 Ne3 Re8 c3 Nf6 a3 Bc7 Ne5 c5 Bc2 a6 f3 cxd4 cxd4 
 23	 -5.95!	16.1M  	0:13.49	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 23	 -6.05?	15.5M  	0:13.03	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 23	 -5.98!	15.4M  	0:12.94	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+! 
 23	 -6.14?	14.9M  	0:12.50	O-O O-O? 
 23	 -6.03?	13.8M  	0:11.72	O-O O-O? 
 23	 -5.99!	13.5M  	0:11.49	O-O O-O Bg4! 
 23	 -6.11?	13.1M  	0:11.14	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 22	 -6.05 	12.0M  	0:10.28	Qe7+ Qe2 Qxe2+ Kxe2 Nh5 Nc3 Nf4+ Kf1 Nxd3 cxd3 Nc6 Nxd5 Bf5 Rd1 Bg4 Re1+ Kd7 Bg3 Bxf3 gxf3 Nxd4 Kg2 f5 Bxd6 Kxd6 Ne7 Ra8 Ng6 Rd8 
 22	 -6.20?	11.1M  	0:09.48	O-O O-O? 
 22	 -6.09?	8.29M  	0:07.20	O-O O-O? 
 22	 -6.01?	7.15M  	0:06.28	O-O O-O? 
 21	 -5.95 	6.65M  	0:05.85	O-O O-O Bg4 Re1 Nbd7 Nc3 c6 Bg3 Bxf3 Qxf3 Bxg3 hxg3 Qb6 Ne2 Re8 Rab1 Nf8 a3 Ne6 c3 Kh8 
 21	 -6.02!	6.44M  	0:05.67	O-O O-O Bg4! 
 21	 -6.07?	6.13M  	0:05.37	O-O O-O? 
 21	 -6.03!	5.93M  	0:05.20	O-O O-O Bg4! 
 20	 -6.09 	4.77M  	0:04.20	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 Nbd7 Nc3 c6 Qd2 c5 dxc5 Nxc5 Nb5 Be7 Bxf6 Bxf6 Nbd4 Qb6 Rab1 Bg4 c3 Bxf3 Nxf3 Ne6 Bf5 Qc6 Ne5 
 20	 -6.09?	3.69M  	0:03.23	O-O O-O? 
 19	 -6.03 	2.82M  	0:02.45	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 Re8 Nc3 c6 Bg3 a6 a3 Bxg3 hxg3 Nbd7 Qd2 Ng4 Rab1 g6 Rbd1 Ndf6 
 19	 -6.11?	2.70M  	0:02.35	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 19	 -5.96?	2.38M  	0:02.09	Qe7+ Qe2? 
 19	 -5.91!	2.24M  	0:01.96	Qe7+ Qe2 Be6! 
 19	 -6.03?	2.09M  	0:01.82	O-O O-O? 
 19	 -5.95?	1.67M  	0:01.46	O-O O-O? 
 18	 -5.89 	1.37M  	0:01.19	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 c3 Nc6 Nbd2 Bb6 Nb3 d4 Nbxd4 Nxd4 cxd4 g5 Bg3 g4 
 18	 -5.94!	1.31M  	0:01.13	O-O O-O Be6! 
 18	 -5.98?	1.14M  	0:00.99	O-O O-O? 
 17	 -5.92 	979406	0:00.83	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 Nbd7 Nc3 a6 Ne5 c6 Qf3 Qc7 Qe3 c5 f4 c4 f5 cxd3 fxe6 
 17	 -5.92!	968913	0:00.82	O-O O-O Be6! 
 17	 -5.96?	868990	0:00.73	O-O O-O? 
 16	 -5.90 	753699	0:00.62	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 a6 Nbd2 Nbd7 Ne5 c5 Nxd7 Bxd7 dxc5 Bxc5 c3 g5 Bg3 Re8 
 16	 -5.90!	699613	0:00.57	O-O O-O Be6! 
 16	 -5.97?	543817	0:00.44	O-O O-O? 
 16	 -5.92!	526936	0:00.42	O-O O-O Be6! 
 16	 -6.04?	498881	0:00.40	c5 dxc5? 
 16	 -5.96?	415675	0:00.34	c5 dxc5? 
 15	 -5.90 	350469	0:00.29	c5 dxc5 Bxc5 O-O O-O c3 Nc6 Nbd2 Be6 Re1 g5 Nb3 Bb6 Bg3 d4 Nfxd4 Nxd4 
 15	 -5.93?	296280	0:00.25	O-O O-O? 
 14	 -5.87 	279790	0:00.23	O-O O-O Na6 c3 c6 Ne5 Nc5 Nxf7 Rxf7 dxc5 Bxc5 Nd2 g5 Bg3 Bd6 Bxd6 
 14	 -5.87?	180752	0:00.15	O-O O-O? 
 14	 -5.78?	134953	0:00.11	O-O O-O? 
 13	 -5.72 	113473	0:00.10	O-O O-O Be6 Re1 c5 dxc5 Bxc5 c3 Nc6 Nbd2 g5 Bg3 g4 Nb3 Bb6 
 12	 -5.73 	87663  	0:00.07	O-O O-O Be6 Nc3 Nc6 Re1 a6 a3 Re8 h3 Kh8 Bg3 Bxg3 
 12	 -5.72?	61634  	0:00.05	O-O O-O? 
 12	 -5.63?	32349  	0:00.03	O-O O-O? 
 11	 -5.57 	28258  	0:00.02	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Re1 a6 Bg3 Bxg3 hxg3 Bg4 
 11	 -5.59!	27237  	0:00.02	O-O O-O Nc6! 
 11	 -5.63?	17270  	0:00.02	O-O O-O? 
 10	 -5.57 	11358  	0:00.01	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Nb5 g5 Bg3 Re8 Nxd6 
 10	 -5.51?	8584    	0:00.01	O-O O-O? 
  9	 -5.45 	7188    	0:00.01	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Nb5 g5 Bg3 Re8 
  9	 -5.40?	5310    	0:00.01	O-O O-O? 
  8	 -5.34 	4457    	0:00.01	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 a3 Re8 Re1 
  8	 -5.28?	3674    	0:00.01	O-O O-O? 
  7	 -5.22 	3036    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Bxf6 
  7	 -5.32!	2727    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  6	 -5.39 	2460    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6 Nc3 Be6 Re1 
  6	 -5.31?	2112    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  6	 -5.10?	1905    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  6	 -4.95?	1579    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  6	 -4.84?	1378    	0:00.00	O-O O-O? 
  5	 -4.78 	1198    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6 Bxf6 
  5	 -4.78!	1083    	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  5	 -5.01!	1003    	0:00.00	O-O Ne5 Nc6! 
  5	 -5.16!	923      	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  5	 -5.27!	867      	0:00.00	O-O O-O Nc6! 
  4	 -5.33 	573      	0:00.00	O-O O-O Bg4 Nc3 
  3	 -4.52 	376      	0:00.00	O-O O-O g5 
  2	 -5.11 	197      	0:00.00	O-O O-O 
  1	 -1.32 	131      	0:00.00	O-O Bxf6 

game was set to 2 to 3, but I had auto flag turned off and went two or 3 minutes over . as I did glanced at the clock now and then. There was no pondering.

McCain is my own personal Stockfish derivative , probably plays 95% of the time just like SF. The initial driver for me to make fork was not playing strength - SF is plenty strong for me, but the additional options I wanted to see in SF, MCCain today can use 4 polyglot books in sequential order., it has play by ELO option which I developed on my own. It is not based on randomness, but the strength is reduced simply by reducing the nps , if effect reducing the horizon. A ussr can pick specific level World Champion, SIM etc or one can pick an ELo and its pretty accurate - not perfect . but pretty close. At the Word Champion level, McCain wills about 80,000 nps. At the FIDE Master level, it wills see about 1600 NPS. At the Expert level , it wills see about 500 nps.

You can try it yourself. I get the lower nps by introducing a sleep command and if you have a super strong computer , you can adjust the setting to match your computer, It assumes your computer would bench McCain at about 1500K nps, but you can adjust it if you need to.

It also has Jekyll & Hyde setting that can make McCain play a little bizarrely.

Binaries of all flavors can be found here:

https://github.com/MichaelB7/Stockfish/releases/tag/X4

I played in a chess club for years and I'm an average club player in the 1600 to 1700 range.

OK, I figured out why Komodo went for the queen trade. Black does win the bishop pair in that variation, roughly half a pawn according to the engine, and this was just about enough to offset the substantial loss for trading queens when down a rook. I would say it was a bad decision, but at least there's some justification, it's not a bug.

[MikeB]

...they are old players between the ages of 50 to 66 years of age.

... when did 50 to 66 become old ? ...glad I missed that email...

;>)

I am 63 but don't feel old … maybe when I am 73 I will …

haha - I wonder if chessqueen realizes that she is hanging out with a bunch of so called "old men" on this forum?

Well, 'chessqueen' in reality is just pichy aka Jorge L Pichard aka Georges and several other accounts, by no means a 'lady'...
(and he is also beyond 50)

wow ..different strokes for different folks I suppose ... I guess "he" is handing hanging around in the right forum - I wonder if "he" prefers "she" - I not sure which pronoun to use now...I suppose I could use "it", but that might be offensive as well ...maybe I'm in the wrong forum ...

[jp]

I personally prefer material

Except that's no longer chess. The engine wasn't built with handicap in mind, the human's elo wasn't built from playing material handicap games, so I don't understand how playing a different game altogether is better to people. Like, you don't see tournaments between humans where they're all set at the same level by removing their material (so one has to play against a Magnus Carlsen that has his two Bishops removed; something like this was tried at chesscube without much success), why is computer-human games different?

Time handicaps are natural, lichess allows users to go "berserk" by cutting their time in half, this is clearly still chess played at different levels, but when you make the engine play high chess level moves instantly, you don't let the human play at the level they'd play against an opponent that required that time to find that great move (unlike engines.) I hope move delay's effects get investigated more.

Time handicaps are even more "natural" when engines are playing (than when both sides are humans), because the software has always been decoupled from the hardware (and you can have ponder off if you want, etc.). Time is equivalent to computing power, and there's never been a fixed "natural" amount of computing power.

Material handicaps are less "unnatural" for humans than for engines, because humans have real intelligence, so they can at least partially adapt to the change, while the engines have no intelligence, so they won't even try to adapt. Whether a chess engine plays relatively well with a handicap is then largely a fluke.

[lkaufman]

I personally prefer material

Except that's no longer chess. The engine wasn't built with handicap in mind, the human's elo wasn't built from playing material handicap games, so I don't understand how playing a different game altogether is better to people. Like, you don't see tournaments between humans where they're all set at the same level by removing their material (so one has to play against a Magnus Carlsen that has his two Bishops removed; something like this was tried at chesscube without much success), why is computer-human games different?

Time handicaps are natural, lichess allows users to go "berserk" by cutting their time in half, this is clearly still chess played at different levels, but when you make the engine play high chess level moves instantly, you don't let the human play at the level they'd play against an opponent that required that time to find that great move (unlike engines.) I hope move delay's effects get investigated more.

Time handicaps are even more "natural" when engines are playing (than when both sides are humans), because the software has always been decoupled from the hardware (and you can have ponder off if you want, etc.). Time is equivalent to computing power, and there's never been a fixed "natural" amount of computing power.

Material handicaps are less "unnatural" for humans than for engines, because humans have real intelligence, so they can at least partially adapt to the change, while the engines have no intelligence, so they won't even try to adapt. Whether a chess engine plays relatively well with a handicap is then largely a fluke.

I don't think it's a fluke at all. For normal engines, it's a function of how much effort the programmers have put into the best way to play when up or down material. For NNs, it seems to depend on the details of how the NN was trained; I'm no expert on this, but perhaps it has to do with how often materially unbalanced positions occur in the training, and the depth of the training games. I would guess that training using very low node counts would produce better handicap play than normal training, because making the best moves when up or down a piece (for example) won't change the result much with deep searches. The losing player has to have some chance to save the game.

[Uri Blass]

I personally prefer material

Except that's no longer chess. The engine wasn't built with handicap in mind, the human's elo wasn't built from playing material handicap games, so I don't understand how playing a different game altogether is better to people. Like, you don't see tournaments between humans where they're all set at the same level by removing their material (so one has to play against a Magnus Carlsen that has his two Bishops removed; something like this was tried at chesscube without much success), why is computer-human games different?

Time handicaps are natural, lichess allows users to go "berserk" by cutting their time in half, this is clearly still chess played at different levels, but when you make the engine play high chess level moves instantly, you don't let the human play at the level they'd play against an opponent that required that time to find that great move (unlike engines.) I hope move delay's effects get investigated more.

Time handicaps are even more "natural" when engines are playing (than when both sides are humans), because the software has always been decoupled from the hardware (and you can have ponder off if you want, etc.). Time is equivalent to computing power, and there's never been a fixed "natural" amount of computing power.

Material handicaps are less "unnatural" for humans than for engines, because humans have real intelligence, so they can at least partially adapt to the change, while the engines have no intelligence, so they won't even try to adapt. Whether a chess engine plays relatively well with a handicap is then largely a fluke.

I disagree.

Engines are programmed by humans and I believe tournaments with odds may be interesting for the programmers.
I think that it may be interesting also for people who are not programmers in order to know which engine is better with material odds because it is better to analyze with an engine that is better in this situation.

I would like to see results between stockfish and komodo in unequal time control when one side start without a knight (b1 or g1) but the opponent does not get a lot of time(let say 10+0.1 time control for stockfish (1 core) against 1000+10 time control for komodo with more cores but without a knight).

It may be interesting to know how changing contempt change the results(not only for the case of time handicap but also for the case of equal time and let say pawn handicap because I am afraid that bigger handicap may lead to results near 100%).