From: Sam Sloan <sloan <at> ISHIPRESS <dot> COM>
Date: 9 jan 2000
Subject: Re: Russian Japanese Handicap Match and Kyu-Dan Test

I have a little philosophical disagreement with Larry Kaufman on this subject.

Larry feels that a fair handicap is one which gives the handicap receiver a
50% chance to win.

However, I feel that a fair handicap is one which gives the handicap
receiver the chance to learn something by losing a relatively close game,
while giving both players the opportunity for an enjoyable and interesting
experience.

Handicaps are necessary because without them the stronger player will just
crush the weaker player with ease and neither player will be interested in
playing again.

So, handicaps just make the game interesting for both. They are not
intended to equalize chances.

I had a bitter experience with this at the US Shogi Championship last year.
This event was played under Larry's accelerated handicap system, as I call
it. I had to give a 6-kyu player a handicap of 6 pieces, and he turned out
to be stronger than 6-kyu. I eventually won the game, but it was a very
long struggle and I was sweating bullets the whole time. It was a very
unpleasant and unenjoyable experience.

Because my game took so long, I had to play a shodan, giving him a lance
(kyo) handicap, immediately without any break. I lost a long and difficult
struggle which I felt I was winning.

It later turned out that this supposed shodan was actually a 4-dan, so
under Larry's system he should have been giving me the handicap of bishop
instead of me giving me the handicap of lance. In that case, I would have
had a good chance.

My opponent, who had received lance odds from me, went on to win all of his
games and the tournament, which got him a prize of an airplane ticket to Japan.

These problems would have been avoided had the traditional handicap system
been used.

Sam Sloan

At 02:38 AM 1/9/00 -0500, Larry Kaufman wrote:
>   Our experience, based on hundreds of handicap games,
>is that the traditional equivalents used in Japan do not even come close to
>equalizing the chances; the handicaps traditionally used are too small.
>For example, although most clubs use rook handicap for a four rank
>difference, our experience has been that two piece handicap is the fair one
>for that difference.  Your comments would be most welcome, especially if
>you can quote some actual statistics.
>
>      Larry Kaufman