Magnus carlsen Vs. God at chess

God would say "let there be checkmate" and it would be, and God would look on magnus and say something profound and magnus would be humbled beneath God's Glory.

Magnus is good, but he isn't exactly infallible...

first off you starting premise is wrong.

the max rating ceiling was estimated to be around 3300-3400 elo

which a computer will someday achieve (around about 50 years from now when i will be dead hopefully)

so gods rating rating would be minimum, in that range, plus alot of the winnning quality's magnus has, will to win, playing on in equal endgames, not getting tired ect. would have no effect on jehovah. after a 1000 move game he would still not be tired.

Hmmz, currently Komodo has 3303 rating in this league... Sorry buddy, you've made it alive...

http://www.computerchess.org.uk/ccrl/4040/

(but I think stockfish is around 3250  now or so, not completely sure, someone else will now)

Why not let God be female and play chess much worse than Carlsen ?

According to computer specialist Ken Regan, the rating of perfect play is 3600

Since we cannot even define perfect play (is chess with perfect play from both sides a draw or not? we simply don't know) I wouldn't take any number being tossed around too seriously...

yes,i misquoted myself i / It was between 3600-3700, my bad

God's rating is -00-

You confuse the ability to define a thing with the ability to understand it.

God vs. Magnus . . .

God played his knight, the Horsehead Nebula, to f6 (yes, he's Black and he's playing first because he's God and he CAN.)

Magnus thinking how to reply . . .

@g-man15

I agree

Wow, Just...Just...Just- WOW.

Magnus wins on time, since there is no God. [BWA HA HA!]

Anand will win

3rd time's the charm?!

'Deep Blue' kibbitzing the God vs. Magnus match!!

what a stupid question, to be expected in a chess.com forum though

Deep into the middle game, God moved his queen, the Veiled Lady nebula,

from 1470 light years from Earth to within just 50 light years from Magnus’ king, perched precariously atop the Prekestolen in Norway. An awesome move, it unleashed a rather vicious discovered check from God’s heavenly rooks. The only problem was that in moving the Veiled Lady, God created strong ripples and warps in the time/space continuum, thereby rendering the game clock useless. And since it would be unfair to Magnus if God took two minutes, two millenia or an eternity to make his next move, the match referee called the game a draw.

Realizing that he probably never would be able to beat God at chess, Carlsen now lives quietly back in Norway, doing a few stints now and then as a male model.

God's rating is a worthwhile discussion.  However considering today's knee jerk "He said the G word" planet, good luck with that terminology. People are too stupid (yes, stupid) to understand the premise of the question and instead go ad hominem instead.

http://www.uschess.org/content/view/12677/763

That guy (^) has estimated God to be at 3300. I actually question that rating b/c technically God would play perfect chess every game.  So, the theory goes 'white should win if God plays white'. 

We'll never be able to totally display or record all possible chess combinations b/c of the limits of this universe (there are more positions than atoms inthe universe according to most estimates). But what can happen is the same thing that happens in SGM's minds - analysis and choosing the best possible move. But with some things like in Sochi 2015 WWC tournament there was I tihnk a 'mate in 57' position that got analyzed out.

The premise of the question is a good one. But I suspect you'll have to use the term "perfect play" and not God since everyone loses like 50 IQ points when they see the word God.

I'm obsessed with the 'perfect play' thing b/c I really want to have a better understanding of how cheaters are caught. 8)  And how to thwart the cheat detection software.  For instance, I would like to run my own games through an automated checking program taht benefits from all of Reagan's work and tells me if it thinks I cheated.  Then, I want to actually play a game vs a dumbbed down computer and cheat with Stockfish and see at what point I 'get caught'. I mean, what if someone plays high most of the time, then their dealer quits and they now are playing sober.  Presumably there would be a rating increase (Oh, I'd love to see some honest testing on this front with a variety of drugs from Diphenhydramine to cocaine).  So would it show as 'cheating' when suddenly someone plays 50+ rating points higher?

THe math behind this is fascinating.  And with one guy showing up at an open and beating like everyone (I forget the name, but it did happen), he submitted to nearly a strip search and they never found anything on him yet he had no clue about the theory in teh game when arbiters questioned him.

I mean, to be gross...  one could have a collaborator sending in signals to a rectally hidden device that communicates with electrical shocks or vibrations of some sort.  And wwith tiny devices today it could be undetectable by a metal detector and maybe even not detectable at all.

And the guy who won those games against grandmasters in the open couldn't have been getting intel from the toilet.  I"ve played aganist the Chessmaster program long ago and 'cheated' by getting long move hints here and there.  It made for an interesting game, but with my low level of chess skill (then and now), I'd have to cheat on every move to beat a strong player.  THAT will show up in Reagan's analysis. 

And don't forget Kramnik vs Topalov (Topalov accused Kramnik of cheating, but this has not ever been proven, Kramnik forefited a game in protest).

We need full body nudity scans like they use in airports maybe to guarantee the integrity of play.