Upgrade to Chess.com Premium!

i just dont know how magnus does it


  • 19 months ago · Quote · #61

    varelse1

    Interesting.

    Do you know of another definition for luck, which does not involve chance?

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #62

    bigpoison

    Check out the etymology.  All will be revealed.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #63

    JasonSchlotter

    I'm thinking it might be that MC plays so far ahead of anyone else that there are about 5 people in the world who, maybe, on a good day, are capable of gaining even a slight understanding of what his strategy is.  

    And gambler's fallacy does not refer to the 1,000 times the coin comes up heads, it refers to the fallacy of a typical gambler who thinks, based on past events, that he is "due", not understanding that on the 1,001 flip the odds of heads are still 50%.

    The fallacy on this page is the people who seem to think that because someone has to be #1, it is possible that someone could "luck" their way into the slot.  Not true in a closed system where individual talent and skill give one person an advantage over another.  I would agree that luck plays a role, but only in the sense that George F. Will described it in his seminal baseball work "Men at Work".  Opportunities for luck occur all the time, but more skilled players are better able to turn those opportunities to their advantage, effectively making them "luckier" than their lesser skilled teammates.

    MC is the luckiest chess player on earth.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #64

    TetsuoShima

    Jason but do you have any clue how big the factor luck is, im not saying  Magnus skill is not better. But luck could also involve other factors chess is also a game of luck. Maybe its not the case with Magnus but probably for 99,99% of the players

    Our brains dont work always the same, maybe someone lost his wife, or is depressed, or lost money or has no time to study... or for whatever reason his brain function is a little bit decreased. There is something called the butterfly affect?

    Jason and maybe in chess its different, but in many areas of life it is not the most skilled who wins but the most determined.

    I personally believe there are many instances were genius failed and stubbornness won. It might not fit on Carlsen but it could be the case for 99,99 per cent of other people.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #65

    theoreticalboy

    Ooooh, it's luck!  Just like if every tennis player who played Nadal just hit all of their shots at 100 mph right onto that point where the base- and doubles-lines intersect, he wouldn't have won one single tournament! Laughing

    oh, chepp players, you really are too much sometimes...

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #66

    TetsuoShima

    Moses2792796 wrote:

    Luck definitely plays a significant role in amateur games, for example, in one game I might initiate an attack based on intuition and as the game progresses I discover that I have all the necessary tactical resources to complete the attack.  In another game I initiate an attack in a similar position only to found out that it is easily refuted.  Amateurs simply don't see enough in the position to eliminate luck.  At Super GM level however it's an entirely different ballgame, luck is a marginal factor at best.

    so you want to tell me that a pro is on every day at the hight of potential strength? never has bad days or something??

    but yes otherwise i agree, yeah its very much luck lol

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #67

    SmyslovFan

    In chess, there's a truism:

    The weaker the player, the more they believe in luck.

    I'm not saying luck doesn't exist at all, but stronger players manage randomness and minimize it in their own moves while maximizing it in their opponent's moves.

    Magnus Carlsen is a very strong player.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #68

    JasonSchlotter

    TetsuoShima, I don't think you understood what I was saying about luck.  Opportunities for luck happen all around us, every day.  It is the talent of individuals that allows them to recognize those opportunities and take advantage of them.  Do MC's opponents make mistakes?  Of course they do. A less talented player like myself would be unlikely at that level to even recognize the other player's move was a mistake, let alone have a clue how to exploit it to my advantage.

    No debate on determination and its effect on success.  There used to be a poster in lumber store I worked at during university that I've always remembered (and I generally think motivational posters are the ridiculous product of lazy minds and out-of-work Hallmark card writers) that said, "It's funny how hard work and good luck seem to walk hand in hand".

    And the Butterfly Effect is not relevant to his conversation - it is layperson's shorthand to describe Chaos Theory.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #69

    Talldude

    Magnus you are definitely an Apex predator on the chess board!!! Lets face it folks Magnus was born a gifted person, and he found his gift. There is no controversy here, he is what he is and he is great at it.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #70

    AdamRinkleff

    maybe magnus should have been an engineer instead.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #71

    Sunofthemorninglight

    or a tennis player.

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #72

    varelse1

    Did you know the Houdini chess engine was once disqualified from a tournament?

    It was accused of referencing Magus Carlsen!

  • 19 months ago · Quote · #73

    MrDamonSmith

    Please be relevant, helpful & nice!

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #74

    AndyClifton

    SmyslovFan wrote:

    In chess, there's a truism:

    The weaker the player, the more they believe in luck.

     

    I guess I suck then, because I believe in it big-time.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #75

    waffllemaster

    AndyClifton wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    In chess, there's a truism:

    The weaker the player, the more they believe in luck.

     

    I guess I suck then, because I believe in it big-time.

    I watched the live feed today and... I don't remember seeing a puppet head playing in the Candidates tournament Laughing

    (although I wonder if Ivanchuk believes in luck... I'll just coffee-house Aronian...)

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #76

    AndyClifton

    theoreticalboy wrote:

    oh, chepp players, you really are too much sometimes...

    It was worth tuning into this thread again just for that cogent blend of wisdom and nostalgia. Smile

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #77

    AndyClifton

    waffllemaster wrote:
    AndyClifton wrote:
    SmyslovFan wrote:

    In chess, there's a truism:

    The weaker the player, the more they believe in luck.

     

    I guess I suck then, because I believe in it big-time.

    I watched the live feed today and... I don't remember seeing a puppet head playing in the Candidates tournament

     

    See, it just wasn't in the cards for me.

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #78

    AndyClifton

    JasonSchlotter wrote:

    And gambler's fallacy does not refer to the 1,000 times the coin comes up heads, it refers to the fallacy of a typical gambler who thinks, based on past events, that he is "due", not understanding that on the 1,001 flip the odds of heads are still 50%.

     

    This whole business has long seemed to me rather murky (and a matter of smoke & mirrors from the probability boys).

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #79

    waffllemaster

    AndyClifton wrote:
    JasonSchlotter wrote:

    And gambler's fallacy does not refer to the 1,000 times the coin comes up heads, it refers to the fallacy of a typical gambler who thinks, based on past events, that he is "due", not understanding that on the 1,001 flip the odds of heads are still 50%.

     

    This whole business has long seemed to me rather murky (and a matter of smoke & mirrors from the probability boys).

    It's all in the phrasing heh.  What's the probability of flipping 3 heads in a row?  12.5%  (IIRC how this works lol).  But if I flip 2 heads in a row what's the probability I flip a heads on the next flip?  Apparently 50% heh.

    Nice to know that their methods have lead to some interesting paradoxes... forgot where I read them... again it's all in the phrasing.  So every few years some statistical mathematician publishes a paper trying to resolve it... but mostly rephrases the question to make it not a paradox lol :)

  • 18 months ago · Quote · #80

    AndyClifton

    Yeah right!  It all seems to depend upon what you declare to be the "sample size" at the outset. lol


Back to Top

Post your reply: