Answers.Body: <p>I agree that it is hopeless to play without pawns unless it is against a very weak player. I just want to add some semi-quantitative measure of how strong the handicap is. According to Stockfish, the starting position where White has no pawns is evaluated as -8.0 (not surprising perhaps, since the evaluation function uses a pawn scale and the material disadvantage is eight pawns). This is nearly as bad as having no bishops (-8.4), but not as bad as having no queen (-11.5). It is, however, worse than missing one rook (-5.5 or -5.7). The normal starting position evaluates as +0.4 due to the first-move advantage.</p>
  
  <p>For more context you could read the Wikipedia article about <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(chess)#Rating_equivalent" rel="nofollow noreferrer">chess handicap</a>. Giving away pieces when playing against weaker players is a historically common practice, and the article discusses the various handicap levels, how they relate to ratings, historical games, etc. While there's no discussion of the "no pawns handicap" (I'd never heard of it either), you can see where rook, bishops, or queen handicap fall on the scale.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-08-13T11:50:41.963Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-08-13T11:50:41.963Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: itub
Answers.Body: <p>This is pretty much hopeless for the player without pawns. The plan for the opponent is simple: exchange as many pieces as you can, then start a pawn storm.</p>
  
  <p>I tried a couple of times, and after removing the white pawns, I can easily beat Stockfish as black. Unless your character plays only against beginners, they won't stand a chance.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-08-13T11:15:43.893Z
Answers.Text: With this discovery, it will be comedy of a fool and not a witty genius. Thanks!
Answers.UserDisplayName: Eric Huelin
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2018-08-13T03:23:43.590Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2018-08-13T03:23:43.590Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Dennis
Body: <p>I'm writing a story where because of the character's vanity says "you can have pawns but I don't need them, they are beneath me."</p>
  
  <p>In such a game who would have the advantage?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2019-09-28T23:53:38.717Z
Comments.Text: The player with the extra pawns.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Tags: <chess-variants>
Title: Pawns VS pawnless?
ThreadText: # Pawns VS pawnless?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2018-08-12)
  
  I'm writing a story where because of the character's vanity says "you can have pawns but I don't need them, they are beneath me."
  
  In such a game who would have the advantage?
  
  **Tags:** chess-variants
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: The player with the extra pawns.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_3 on 2018-08-13. Score: 7 | Accepted answer
  
  This is pretty much hopeless for the player without pawns. The plan for the opponent is simple: exchange as many pieces as you can, then start a pawn storm.
  
  I tried a couple of times, and after removing the white pawns, I can easily beat Stockfish as black. Unless your character plays only against beginners, they won't stand a chance.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_0**: With this discovery, it will be comedy of a fool and not a witty genius. Thanks!  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2018-08-13. Score: 1
  
  I agree that it is hopeless to play without pawns unless it is against a very weak player. I just want to add some semi-quantitative measure of how strong the handicap is. According to Stockfish, the starting position where White has no pawns is evaluated as -8.0 (not surprising perhaps, since the evaluation function uses a pawn scale and the material disadvantage is eight pawns). This is nearly as bad as having no bishops (-8.4), but not as bad as having no queen (-11.5). It is, however, worse than missing one rook (-5.5 or -5.7). The normal starting position evaluates as +0.4 due to the first-move advantage.
  
  For more context you could read the Wikipedia article about [chess handicap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handicap_(chess)#Rating_equivalent). Giving away pieces when playing against weaker players is a historically common practice, and the article discusses the various handicap levels, how they relate to ratings, historical games, etc. While there's no discussion of the "no pawns handicap" (I'd never heard of it either), you can see where rook, bishops, or queen handicap fall on the scale.
  
  
  ---
  
  