Queen for Knight challenge

[Father]

In order to spur interest in the little-known LeelaQueenForKnight bot, I offered a $300 prize for the first FIDE titled player of known identity (NMs allowed if rated over 2600 blitz or Rapid on Lichess or chess.com) to win a 30 game blitz match from the bot. Initially it was restricted to 3'0" (or 2'1"), but since no one even came close in the first 3 days, despite many IMs and one GM trying, the max time limit has been raised to 3'1", which many consider to be comparable online to the standard over-the-board blitz time control of 3'2". Maybe soon we will see someone claim the prize. There are some restrictions, Leela gets White, the player must have an established online blitz or Rapid rating over 2500, the 30 games must be consecutive and played within a 16 hour window, and the prize won't be awarded if there is evidence of cheating (computer use). The title and rating restrictions are meant to weed out players who would almost certainly not be able to win the match without cheating; exceptions will be made for known strong players on request. In general, players below FM level can't even win a blitz match at full queen odds, so it probably takes GM blitz level to do so at queen for knight odds. But at 3'0" or 2'1" the best result so far was by IM Kacper Drozdowski, a really top level blitz player (3070 on chess.com), who scored 8 points in the 30 games.

It’s beyond me how bullet and blitz prove anything. It’s way too easy to make dumb errors of blindness at those time controls. Results are a fix. Please try again at 30 minutes or one hour per game.

... the fact that LeelaQueenOdds even draws a single game is something phenomenal. Phenomenal at any level of play, I would think. I have not stopped being amazed by the results of the Odds robots. And the one that surprises me the most is QueenOdds. Personally, my interaction with the machines occurs at crucial moments, and the advent of the Odds is one of these moments. Now my analysis points to something different that would be called: 'The science fiction of science fiction.' ... 'the moment or day when QueenOdds beats all humans in a match at the level of 1 minute 0 increment. I don’t know if that will be possible or not. When the Great Federated aspire no more than to draw against LeelaQueenOdds in 1 minute 0 increment, personally, Catecan will stubbornly want to return to the path and walk in search of illusions after the lost treasure... all of this is a four-corner challenge... Programmers and computation teams; hardware and players, AI.'

[lkaufman]

In order to spur interest in the little-known LeelaQueenForKnight bot, I offered a $300 prize for the first FIDE titled player of known identity (NMs allowed if rated over 2600 blitz or Rapid on Lichess or chess.com) to win a 30 game blitz match from the bot. Initially it was restricted to 3'0" (or 2'1"), but since no one even came close in the first 3 days, despite many IMs and one GM trying, the max time limit has been raised to 3'1", which many consider to be comparable online to the standard over-the-board blitz time control of 3'2". Maybe soon we will see someone claim the prize. There are some restrictions, Leela gets White, the player must have an established online blitz or Rapid rating over 2500, the 30 games must be consecutive and played within a 16 hour window, and the prize won't be awarded if there is evidence of cheating (computer use). The title and rating restrictions are meant to weed out players who would almost certainly not be able to win the match without cheating; exceptions will be made for known strong players on request. In general, players below FM level can't even win a blitz match at full queen odds, so it probably takes GM blitz level to do so at queen for knight odds. But at 3'0" or 2'1" the best result so far was by IM Kacper Drozdowski, a really top level blitz player (3070 on chess.com), who scored 8 points in the 30 games.

It’s beyond me how bullet and blitz prove anything. It’s way too easy to make dumb errors of blindness at those time controls. Results are a fix. Please try again at 30 minutes or one hour per game.

Certainly it is more interesting to have longer TC games at smaller odds, but it is far more difficult to persuade titled players to play such games for modest prizes, and unknown amateurs with no chess reputation to risk are far more likely to cheat for money prizes. Also the risk of cheating rises with the time limit, or more precisely the risk of undetectable cheating rises; it's usually fairly obvious in blitz. Of course there are more and larger errors as the time limit gets faster, but in general I don't think there is much difference between a strong GM playing blitz at 3'1" than a random 2200 FIDE player playing 30'10". Just assume that whatever performance rating a bot gets at 3'1" will be several hundred elo lower at long time controls; with more data we can quantify that number more precisely.

[lkaufman]

Good evening Mister Larry Kaufman. I have a question please. Are the bots leelaOdds now much better now than five months ago. Thanks in advance.

Well, "much" is a matter of opinion. There have been a few upgrades, probably most notably to queen odds and some of the multi-piece odds. Especially in bullet games you might notice the improvement in queen odds. Maybe for LQO bullet it might be 100 elo stronger than five months ago, give or take. About 3 months ago one human (GM Awonder Liang) was able to win a long 1'0" match vs LQO despite Leela playing White; I'm not sure if he (or anyone else) could do so today.

Good morning Mr. Larry Kaufman. Thank you for your information. Since October 7th, I have played very little. I still continue with the philosophical question, in the sense of whether LeelaQueenOdds and the other Odds will increase their performance to the point that human chess professionals will have no choice but to fight for draws. Then I would believe that it would be an opportunity for me to return to systematically competing against the Odds and to once again occupy good positions in the result tables of the top 100 humans. The truth is I do not know what will happen first: Whether it will be the super level of chess computers or the depletion of my own energy stack of life and the transformation to other energetic levels of the soul, intelligence, memory, will, and freedom. Once again, thank you very much Mr. Larry Kaufman.

Everything depends on time control. At pure bullet (1'0"), we may already be at the point where no human can score 50% vs LQO playing White, I'm not sure about that, but they mostly score wins, not draws. Regarding the queen for knight challenge, still no one has won the prize; Super-GM Jeffery Xiong tried last night (at the new 3'1" time control), and scored 2 wins, 4 draws, and 4 losses. Someone is bound to do it soon.

Good afternoon Mr. Larry Kaufman. Do draws have any value for me without being preceded by my victories? If they have value without being preceded by victories on the part of the human, I could try it at a time level of 1 minute with zero increment per move against different robots, whether playing with black pieces myself or with white pieces myself.

I believe that the current Leaderboard rule is that after a win, the next six draws count, after that they stop counting until you win another game. So to do well on the leaderboard, play at whatever time control you can at least win close to 20% of your games. Maybe you can do that in 3'0" with queen odds, certainly there are many players who can do better than that, the best can win about 90% at that time control. Or you can play at 1'0" at larger odds like queen plus knight or rook, whatever odds allow you to win at least about 20%, all odds are now on the leaderboard.

[chrisw]

In order to spur interest in the little-known LeelaQueenForKnight bot, I offered a $300 prize for the first FIDE titled player of known identity (NMs allowed if rated over 2600 blitz or Rapid on Lichess or chess.com) to win a 30 game blitz match from the bot. Initially it was restricted to 3'0" (or 2'1"), but since no one even came close in the first 3 days, despite many IMs and one GM trying, the max time limit has been raised to 3'1", which many consider to be comparable online to the standard over-the-board blitz time control of 3'2". Maybe soon we will see someone claim the prize. There are some restrictions, Leela gets White, the player must have an established online blitz or Rapid rating over 2500, the 30 games must be consecutive and played within a 16 hour window, and the prize won't be awarded if there is evidence of cheating (computer use). The title and rating restrictions are meant to weed out players who would almost certainly not be able to win the match without cheating; exceptions will be made for known strong players on request. In general, players below FM level can't even win a blitz match at full queen odds, so it probably takes GM blitz level to do so at queen for knight odds. But at 3'0" or 2'1" the best result so far was by IM Kacper Drozdowski, a really top level blitz player (3070 on chess.com), who scored 8 points in the 30 games.

It’s beyond me how bullet and blitz prove anything. It’s way too easy to make dumb errors of blindness at those time controls. Results are a fix. Please try again at 30 minutes or one hour per game.

Certainly it is more interesting to have longer TC games at smaller odds, but it is far more difficult to persuade titled players to play such games for modest prizes, and unknown amateurs with no chess reputation to risk are far more likely to cheat for money prizes. Also the risk of cheating rises with the time limit, or more precisely the risk of undetectable cheating rises; it's usually fairly obvious in blitz. Of course there are more and larger errors as the time limit gets faster, but in general I don't think there is much difference between a strong GM playing blitz at 3'1" than a random 2200 FIDE player playing 30'10". Just assume that whatever performance rating a bot gets at 3'1" will be several hundred elo lower at long time controls; with more data we can quantify that number more precisely.

Well, you can go to longer time controls without cash prizes. If people are interested in playing they will play, or is your objective just to maximise games played for some reason?

[Father]

In order to spur interest in the little-known LeelaQueenForKnight bot, I offered a $300 prize for the first FIDE titled player of known identity (NMs allowed if rated over 2600 blitz or Rapid on Lichess or chess.com) to win a 30 game blitz match from the bot. Initially it was restricted to 3'0" (or 2'1"), but since no one even came close in the first 3 days, despite many IMs and one GM trying, the max time limit has been raised to 3'1", which many consider to be comparable online to the standard over-the-board blitz time control of 3'2". Maybe soon we will see someone claim the prize. There are some restrictions, Leela gets White, the player must have an established online blitz or Rapid rating over 2500, the 30 games must be consecutive and played within a 16 hour window, and the prize won't be awarded if there is evidence of cheating (computer use). The title and rating restrictions are meant to weed out players who would almost certainly not be able to win the match without cheating; exceptions will be made for known strong players on request. In general, players below FM level can't even win a blitz match at full queen odds, so it probably takes GM blitz level to do so at queen for knight odds. But at 3'0" or 2'1" the best result so far was by IM Kacper Drozdowski, a really top level blitz player (3070 on chess.com), who scored 8 points in the 30 games.

It’s beyond me how bullet and blitz prove anything. It’s way too easy to make dumb errors of blindness at those time controls. Results are a fix. Please try again at 30 minutes or one hour per game.

Certainly it is more interesting to have longer TC games at smaller odds, but it is far more difficult to persuade titled players to play such games for modest prizes, and unknown amateurs with no chess reputation to risk are far more likely to cheat for money prizes. Also the risk of cheating rises with the time limit, or more precisely the risk of undetectable cheating rises; it's usually fairly obvious in blitz. Of course there are more and larger errors as the time limit gets faster, but in general I don't think there is much difference between a strong GM playing blitz at 3'1" than a random 2200 FIDE player playing 30'10". Just assume that whatever performance rating a bot gets at 3'1" will be several hundred elo lower at long time controls; with more data we can quantify that number more precisely.

Well, you can go to longer time controls without cash prizes. If people are interested in playing they will play, or is your objective just to maximise games played for some reason?

... ...in September 2024 Mr. Larry Kaufman taught me that Odds robots existed; I was able to be a witness and a protagonist with my small contribution, a grain of sand, to the extraordinary development of the Odds, a product of the work of the entire human team that participated in making evolutionary reality for the robots. I also witnessed the creation of the leaderboard of the 100 best humans in 4 robots. I was allowed to participate and occupy excellent positions on that leaderboard and have the joy of interacting in the ecosystem alongside professionals and Federated masters. In short, in just a little over a year I fulfilled all the chess dreams of my life thanks to the work and generosity of people I have never met and whom I know through their cybernetic masterpieces. There were a little over 10,500 of my games until October 7, 2025, one year an a mounth, and I ended up somewhat exhausted. I hope to return one day to test and experience the robots and their development.

[chrisw]

In order to spur interest in the little-known LeelaQueenForKnight bot, I offered a $300 prize for the first FIDE titled player of known identity (NMs allowed if rated over 2600 blitz or Rapid on Lichess or chess.com) to win a 30 game blitz match from the bot. Initially it was restricted to 3'0" (or 2'1"), but since no one even came close in the first 3 days, despite many IMs and one GM trying, the max time limit has been raised to 3'1", which many consider to be comparable online to the standard over-the-board blitz time control of 3'2". Maybe soon we will see someone claim the prize. There are some restrictions, Leela gets White, the player must have an established online blitz or Rapid rating over 2500, the 30 games must be consecutive and played within a 16 hour window, and the prize won't be awarded if there is evidence of cheating (computer use). The title and rating restrictions are meant to weed out players who would almost certainly not be able to win the match without cheating; exceptions will be made for known strong players on request. In general, players below FM level can't even win a blitz match at full queen odds, so it probably takes GM blitz level to do so at queen for knight odds. But at 3'0" or 2'1" the best result so far was by IM Kacper Drozdowski, a really top level blitz player (3070 on chess.com), who scored 8 points in the 30 games.

It’s beyond me how bullet and blitz prove anything. It’s way too easy to make dumb errors of blindness at those time controls. Results are a fix. Please try again at 30 minutes or one hour per game.

Certainly it is more interesting to have longer TC games at smaller odds, but it is far more difficult to persuade titled players to play such games for modest prizes, and unknown amateurs with no chess reputation to risk are far more likely to cheat for money prizes. Also the risk of cheating rises with the time limit, or more precisely the risk of undetectable cheating rises; it's usually fairly obvious in blitz. Of course there are more and larger errors as the time limit gets faster, but in general I don't think there is much difference between a strong GM playing blitz at 3'1" than a random 2200 FIDE player playing 30'10". Just assume that whatever performance rating a bot gets at 3'1" will be several hundred elo lower at long time controls; with more data we can quantify that number more precisely.

Well, you can go to longer time controls without cash prizes. If people are interested in playing they will play, or is your objective just to maximise games played for some reason?

... ...in September 2024 Mr. Larry Kaufman taught me that Odds robots existed; I was able to be a witness and a protagonist with my small contribution, a grain of sand, to the extraordinary development of the Odds, a product of the work of the entire human team that participated in making evolutionary reality for the robots. I also witnessed the creation of the leaderboard of the 100 best humans in 4 robots. I was allowed to participate and occupy excellent positions on that leaderboard and have the joy of interacting in the ecosystem alongside professionals and Federated masters. In short, in just a little over a year I fulfilled all the chess dreams of my life thanks to the work and generosity of people I have never met and whom I know through their cybernetic masterpieces. There were a little over 10,500 of my games until October 7, 2025, one year an a mounth, and I ended up somewhat exhausted. I hope to return one day to test and experience the robots and their development.

How is the above post in any way a response to what I wrote? Well, it isn’t, so I’ll ignore it.

To the point, bullet/blitz odds games between bot and strong player are completely disinteresting. WTF cares if GM loses because he loses his queen or leaves on a mate-in1 to some blindness or other?
What would be interesting to view/analyse would be games where the GM was just outplayed technically and positionally. Then there would be something to learn. How did the engine do it? Enough of this Elo bean counting mass games nonsense.

[towforce]

...in September 2024 Mr. Larry Kaufman taught me that Odds robots existed; I was able to be a witness and a protagonist with my small contribution, a grain of sand, to the extraordinary development of the Odds, a product of the work of the entire human team that participated in making evolutionary reality for the robots. I also witnessed the creation of the leaderboard of the 100 best humans in 4 robots. I was allowed to participate and occupy excellent positions on that leaderboard and have the joy of interacting in the ecosystem alongside professionals and Federated masters. In short, in just a little over a year I fulfilled all the chess dreams of my life thanks to the work and generosity of people I have never met and whom I know through their cybernetic masterpieces. There were a little over 10,500 of my games until October 7, 2025, one year an a mounth, and I ended up somewhat exhausted. I hope to return one day to test and experience the robots and their development.

Thank you for sharing this uplifting story!

[lkaufman]

In order to spur interest in the little-known LeelaQueenForKnight bot, I offered a $300 prize for the first FIDE titled player of known identity (NMs allowed if rated over 2600 blitz or Rapid on Lichess or chess.com) to win a 30 game blitz match from the bot. Initially it was restricted to 3'0" (or 2'1"), but since no one even came close in the first 3 days, despite many IMs and one GM trying, the max time limit has been raised to 3'1", which many consider to be comparable online to the standard over-the-board blitz time control of 3'2". Maybe soon we will see someone claim the prize. There are some restrictions, Leela gets White, the player must have an established online blitz or Rapid rating over 2500, the 30 games must be consecutive and played within a 16 hour window, and the prize won't be awarded if there is evidence of cheating (computer use). The title and rating restrictions are meant to weed out players who would almost certainly not be able to win the match without cheating; exceptions will be made for known strong players on request. In general, players below FM level can't even win a blitz match at full queen odds, so it probably takes GM blitz level to do so at queen for knight odds. But at 3'0" or 2'1" the best result so far was by IM Kacper Drozdowski, a really top level blitz player (3070 on chess.com), who scored 8 points in the 30 games.

It’s beyond me how bullet and blitz prove anything. It’s way too easy to make dumb errors of blindness at those time controls. Results are a fix. Please try again at 30 minutes or one hour per game.

Certainly it is more interesting to have longer TC games at smaller odds, but it is far more difficult to persuade titled players to play such games for modest prizes, and unknown amateurs with no chess reputation to risk are far more likely to cheat for money prizes. Also the risk of cheating rises with the time limit, or more precisely the risk of undetectable cheating rises; it's usually fairly obvious in blitz. Of course there are more and larger errors as the time limit gets faster, but in general I don't think there is much difference between a strong GM playing blitz at 3'1" than a random 2200 FIDE player playing 30'10". Just assume that whatever performance rating a bot gets at 3'1" will be several hundred elo lower at long time controls; with more data we can quantify that number more precisely.

Well, you can go to longer time controls without cash prizes. If people are interested in playing they will play, or is your objective just to maximise games played for some reason?

Obectives include increasing interest in the bots, determing their elo more accurately at the time controls preferred by strong players, and comparing the different handicaps. People are welcome/encouraged to play at longer time controls, but what is a competition without a prize? We might very well have a similar competition at a smaller handicap with a longer time limit, but for the chosen handicap the time limit was appropriate; the prize was won today by Super-GM Jeffery Xiong, after several other strong GMs and IMs failed. Although of course some games were won by the bot due to simple tactics, others were more interesting/impressive, won against multiple small errors. The next challenge will be a similar one but at odds of Two Knights, details to be announced soon.

[towforce]

...the prize was won today by Super-GM Jeffery Xiong, after several other strong GMs and IMs failed.

I am impressed by the level of opponent you attracted for the relatively modest sum of $300!

[lkaufman]

...the prize was won today by Super-GM Jeffery Xiong, after several other strong GMs and IMs failed.

I am impressed by the level of opponent you attracted for the relatively modest sum of $300!

It seems many were more attracted by the challenge than by the actual prize money. The players were not generally from poor countries. The winner hasn't even responded yet to a request to claim his prize.