We discussed odds-giving last Friday – that is, starting without one or more of your pieces.
I mentioned one of my favourite Lasker stories, where he teased a player who didn’t know hime, which I quote from Chernev (1948):
Lasker `I think the odds of a Knight is an advantage to the odds-giver. You can get your Queen Rook into play quickly, and work up a strong attack. Let me try to give you a Knight odds.’ Lasker’s adversary assured him that at Knight odds, he (Lasker) would not have a chance. They tried a game though, and Lasker won. `You see,’ said
Lasker, `that proves my statement. Now give me a Knight.’ They played again, and Lasker lost. Now Lasker gave the odds-and won. After a few more games where they alternated in giving up a Knight, with the result that the side without a knight always won, Lasker’s opponent, bewildered by the `proof,’ got up and said, `I guess you’re right after all. It does seem to be an advantage to give a Knight!'”
And here is a startling odds game: Potter starts without a Queen, plays six moves, then announces mate in eight! That is, his combination was longer than the game.