Answers.Body: <p>The queenside pieces are less missed than their kingside equivalents, not only in defense but also in attack.  Giving the kingside piece amounts to increasing the handicap.  </p>
  
  <p>This would be most pronounced if the bishop's pawns were involved, because the square on which they originally stand is the weakest point in the uncastled position, and vacating it offers open lines for an attacker to check the king both <em>before</em> and <em>after</em> castling, and may result in being unable to castle at all.</p>
  
  <p>So, while it was done to give the kingside piece, the queenside piece was considered fair odds.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2016-09-28T18:54:19.090Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2016-09-28T18:54:19.090Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: jaxter
Body: <p>For instance, "pawn odds" is really "pawn <em>and move</em>" odds. That is, the odds giver plays Black and removes his KBP.</p>
  
  <p>Why not allow an "intermediate" odds where the odds giver plays white? And why not allow the odds give to choose which pawn to remove?</p>
  
  <p>In the case of knight and rook odds, it is the queen knight or rook that's removed, but why not allow the odds giver to substitute the king's pieces instead?</p>
  
Tags: <handicapping>
Title: How and why were the chess pieces given as "odds" predetermined?
ThreadText: # How and why were the chess pieces given as "odds" predetermined?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2016-09-26)
  
  For instance, "pawn odds" is really "pawn *and move*" odds. That is, the odds giver plays Black and removes his KBP.
  
  Why not allow an "intermediate" odds where the odds giver plays white? And why not allow the odds give to choose which pawn to remove?
  
  In the case of knight and rook odds, it is the queen knight or rook that's removed, but why not allow the odds giver to substitute the king's pieces instead?
  
  **Tags:** handicapping
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2016-09-28. Score: 1 | Accepted answer
  
  The queenside pieces are less missed than their kingside equivalents, not only in defense but also in attack. Giving the kingside piece amounts to increasing the handicap.
  
  This would be most pronounced if the bishop's pawns were involved, because the square on which they originally stand is the weakest point in the uncastled position, and vacating it offers open lines for an attacker to check the king both *before* and *after* castling, and may result in being unable to castle at all.
  
  So, while it was done to give the kingside piece, the queenside piece was considered fair odds.
  
  
  ---
  
  