Analysis of Blitz Handicap Systems Home
by John Loughran
Which handicap system is fairest?  See what you think!
Did it favour stronger or weaker or even middle ranked players in practice?
For comparison, the average score within rating bands is shown for my system and the new
system, along with the (total time 10 minutes) handicap systems themselves and raw results.
Further down the total time 15 mins system is shown.
Handicap System for Blitz Chess - J.Loughran
Total time 10 mins. Minutes for Lower's
New Handicap System used in 2004 Rating Difference Higher/ Lower chances
Rating Difference Minutes Players equal time
<100 5.0 5.0 0-20 5.0 5.0 50%
100-200 6.0 4.0 20-50 5.5 4.5 45%
200-300 7.0 3.0 50-80 6.0 4.0 40%
300-400 8.0 2.0 80-120 6.5 3.5 35%
>600 9.0 1.0 120-160 7.0 3.0 30%
160-200 7.5 2.5 25%
200-260 8.0 2.0 20%
260-320 8.5 1.5 15%
>320 9.0 1.0 10%
Results of EMCC Handicap Christmas Blitzes, sorted by ratings.
2004, using new system 1995 and 1998, using old system
Rating Rating
Band Band
% Avg % % Avg %
Rating Pts Pl score Score Rating score Score
Ciaran Quinn 1907 3.0 7 43% >1700 Gerry MacElligott 2016 50% >1700
Zygis Jakubauskas 1900 6.0 7 86%   Gerry MacElligott 1988 40%  
Bernard Boyle 1759 4.5 7 64% 69% Ciaran Quinn 1956 83% 55%
Gerry Barry 1730 5.0 7 71%   Ciaran Quinn 1945 20%  
David Fitzsimons 1703 5.5 7 79%   Ray O'Rourke 1906 80%  
Gedas Jakubauskas 1700 5.0 7 71%   Feargal O'Dwyer 1904 50%  
Alan MacDonagh 1697 5.0 7 71% 15-1700 Oliver Dunne 1812 60%  
John Loughran 1668 3.0 7 43%   Alan MacDonagh 1805 60%  
Pat Fitzsimons 1629 5.0 7 71% 56% Sean Loftus 1692 17% 15-1700
Karl Vernor 1580 4.0 7 57%   Pat Byrne 1668 30%  
Eugene Donohoe 1518 5.5 7 79%   Gerry Barry 1665 50% 45%
Eugene McMorrow 1507 2.0 7 29%   Gerry Barry 1657 70%  
Gerry Behan 1506 2.5 6 42%   John Loughran 1648 40%  
Peter Scott 1471 4.0 7 57% 12-1500 Bernard Boyle 1639 30%  
Greg Coyle 1460 1.0 5 20%   Alec Tyrrell 1610 42%  
David O'Mahony 1459 3.5 7 50% 41% Donal O'Dannchair 1608 67%  
Victor Murray 1394 1.0 7 14%   Kevin Summons-Walsh 1605 58%  
Sean Davoren 1236 4.5 7 64%   Alec Tyrrell 1588 60%  
Kevin Murray 1070 1.0 7 14% <1200 John Loughran 1587 33%  
Donal Harrington 895 4.5 7 64%   Gerry Maher 1540 40%  
Denis Donachie 800 0.0 5 0% 30% Victor Murray 1485 17% 12-1500
Jim Shanahan 800 3.0 7 43%   Greg Coyle 1481 0%  
William Ffrench 800 2.0 4 50%   Larry Daly 1445 33% 44%
Silvia de Barcelona 800 0.5 7 7%   Peter Scott 1434 50%  
Eugene McMurrow 1403 33%  
Best second placed player on tiebreak Eamonn FitzGerald 1395 70%  
(lowest rating) was Pat Fitzsimons Eugene McMurrow 1389 60%  
Eugene Donohoe 1314 60%  
Semi-finals (drawn by lottery) Karl Vernor 1312 70%  
Pat Fitzsimons 0 1 David Fitzsimons John Dooley 1185 40% <1200
Zygis Jakubauskas 1 0 Eugene Donohue Niall Sheridan 1184 58%  
Final Eugene Donohoe 1171 58% 58%
David Fitzsimons 0 1 Zygis Jakubauskas Brian Brennan 1146 50%  
Christmas Handicap Blitz Champion 2004 Kevin Murray 1110 33%  
Zygis Jakubauskas Mick Cox 1083 100%  
Wiliam Ffrench 1011 83%  
Kevin Murray 1009 20%  
Karl Vernor 1000 50%  
Kevin Rajaratnam 1000 83%  
Richard Galvin 1000 67%  
Handicap System for Blitz Chess - J.Loughran
Total time 15 mins. Minutes for Lower's
Difference in ratings Higher/ Lower chances if
Players time equaL
0-40 7.5 7.5 50%
40-6- 8 7 45%
60-90 9 6 42%
90-110 9.5 5.5 38%
110-130 10 5 33%
130-170 10.5 4.5 30%
170-190 11 4 27%
190-220 11.5 3.5 23%
220-260 12 3 20%
260-290 12.5 2.5 18%
290-340 13 2 15%
>340 13.5 1.5 10%
Conclusions
The handicap system for blitz chess games was devised in about 1995 by John Loughran.
It is based on a simple idea.  From the difference in two players' ratings by looking up a
chart you can get the expected score of each player.  For example, if Jack, rated 1400 plays
Jill rated 1500 we expect Jack to score 35%.  For example in 10 games we expect Jack to get 3.5
and Jill to get 6.5 points.  My system gives Jill 3.5 minutes and Jack gets 6.5 minutes to even the
odds. This system has been proven to be reasonably fair in practice where the total time divided
up was 10 or 15 minutes, as the graph shows.  For an ideal system the graph would be
flat so that players of all ratings got on average 50%.  Of course due to form, ability at blitz and
other factors player's scores vary widely so it is more useful to compare average scores within
rating bands, as shown before the graphs.
As I devised the system I am obviously biased.  However I do feel that any handicap system
should give roughly equal chances to players in all rating bands, otherwise its not a real handicap.
My system is less than perfect.  It is not as easy to remember as the "new" system.
It does slightly disadvantage the middle ranked players.  However, despite the seemingly extreme 9-1
time difference for >340 rating points differences, strong players performed well (55%).
It is based on some logic, to compensate the weaker player by giving them time odds which are
inversely proportional to their chances of beating the stronger player.
The "new" system is simpler, but based on a false idea that chances are proportional to rating
difference, which is not the case, and clearly biases the results in favour of stronger players.
These are, of course, only my own opinions and conclusions.
To be fair, I will publish here any conflicting opinions sent to me by email.
John Loughran, January 2005