Forums

Andrew Tate vs Piers Morgan - Chess Game Review (94% Accuracy)

Sort:
Kraig
 

Controversial online personality Andrew Tate appeared on Piers Morgan's "Uncensored" show last night. He was challenged on several points of view, but perhaps most interesting of all was the final 5 minutes of the show - where Piers Morgan, who introduced himself as his former school chess champion, challenged the son of late International Master Emory Tate to a 5 minute OTB game, during which, both players spoke about how they each derived value from the game of chess! Tate had the white pieces and went into a Queens Gambit Declined.


*Result below*

Chess.com analysis gives an incredible 94% accuracy for Tate, and chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729 which is rather generous considering how the game went!

toxic_internet

"chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729"

How and where does one find/access this tool?

Kraig
toxic_internet wrote:

"chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729"

How and where does one find/access this tool?


Follow this link to join the Beta program: https://support.chess.com/article/328-how-do-i-join-the-beta
From there, when you conduct a 'Game Review', at the end of the Analysis, it'll assess an approximate playing strength (rating) to both players based on the game.

dfgh123

No surprises that Piers Morgan is an early queen mover.

Kraig
dfgh123 wrote:

No surprises that Piers Morgan is an early queen mover.


Yeah those moves were rather dubious, but still, it was a 5 minute game live to hundreds of thousands of people, so you can forgive some nerves!

Manugarc

The Top G aka. Mr. Producer once again displaying his perspicacity, even in a game as complex as chess. Seriously, though, this is a textbook example of how to beat an inferior player and the knight sacrifice shows he has some of the same attacking capabilities his father had.

Martin_Stahl
Kraig wrote:
 

...

Chess.com analysis gives an incredible 94% accuracy for Tate, and chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729 which is rather generous considering how the game went!

 

That report card feature is going to receive updates so the ratings have some caveats.

llama36
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Kraig wrote:
 

...

Chess.com analysis gives an incredible 94% accuracy for Tate, and chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729 which is rather generous considering how the game went!

 

That report card feature is going to receive updates so the ratings have some caveats.

First the tactics ratings and now this.

Can't wait for the forum topics "chess.com says I played like a 3300 rated player but my rapid is only 800, what is wrong with me?" meh

llama36

11.Qc2 14.Be5 and 21.Qxh6 betray the fact that Tate is below, you know, master level... but they're fairly minor tells and it's hard to know how seriously he was taking it after winning a queen. Maybe he was just pointing things at the king expecting Morgan to miss mate in 1. Mostly Morgan was too poor a player to be able to tell much about white.

But I'd guess... something around 1600-1800 chess.com is possible.

PawnTsunami
llama36 wrote:

11.Qc2 14.Be5 and 21.Qxh6 betray the fact that Tate is below, you know, master level... but they're fairly minor tells and it's hard to know how seriously he was taking it after winning a queen. Maybe he was just pointing things at the king expecting Morgan to miss mate in 1. Mostly Morgan was too poor a player to be able to tell much about white.

But I'd guess... something around 1600-1800 chess.com is possible.

Keep in mind his father was an IM, so it is not unreasonable to assume he played a good amount with his dad growing up and he and his brother would be decently strong club players if they had the desire to try.

dfgh123

I noticed Piers Morgan say in the interview that Lennox Lewis is an amazing chess player, being British I have heard this hundreds of times on tv for over 20 years that it is now stated as a fact, I think the same is now happening with Andrew Tate.

Kraig
PawnTsunami wrote:
llama36 wrote:

11.Qc2 14.Be5 and 21.Qxh6 betray the fact that Tate is below, you know, master level... but they're fairly minor tells and it's hard to know how seriously he was taking it after winning a queen. Maybe he was just pointing things at the king expecting Morgan to miss mate in 1. Mostly Morgan was too poor a player to be able to tell much about white.

But I'd guess... something around 1600-1800 chess.com is possible.

Keep in mind his father was an IM, so it is not unreasonable to assume he played a good amount with his dad growing up and he and his brother would be decently strong club players if they had the desire to try.


Someone in another thread posted his supposed username and the chess.com rating in blitz fluctuates between 1650 and 1850, so its legitimately his account, that also sounds about right.

Re: the Lennox comment, I'd take that with a pinch of salt, and am surprised Piers was so quick to say "Lennox is better than you" after only like 5 moves in. How can you tell?
A few sources online suggest Lennox is a 1200. If Piers is lets say, 800. It makes sense that Lennox would beat Piers repeatedly.
Beginners in general don't have a good concept of how good someone is just by playing them. I remember being 700. It's difficult to distinguish the strength of someone who is 1500 or 2000. They both more-or-less play the same to a 700.

Kraig
Martin_Stahl wrote:
Kraig wrote:
 

...

Chess.com analysis gives an incredible 94% accuracy for Tate, and chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729 which is rather generous considering how the game went!

 

That report card feature is going to receive updates so the ratings have some caveats.


Yeah, appreciate it's very much still in Beta stage. Only referenced it as a bit of a novelty.

WerePigCat

"chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729"

I find the number to be wildly inacurate, out of the 11 games of mine I looked at, it rated 6 at 900-100, 2 at 1200-1300, 1 at 700-800, and 2 below 700. I am a 700-800 player for rapid, yet it rated most of my games between 900 and 1000 so it really does not really say anything except that they are probably within 500 of the estimation on a win, and like 300 on a loss. Those are just ball park numbers so it could be 700+ off.

dfgh123

Lennox is 700 in blitz online and Piers said Lennox beat him 39 times out of 40, so I would be surprised if piers rating is 1700.

toxic_internet
Kraig wrote:
toxic_internet wrote:

"chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729"

How and where does one find/access this tool?


Follow this link to join the Beta program: https://support.chess.com/article/328-how-do-i-join-the-beta
From there, when you conduct a 'Game Review', at the end of the Analysis, it'll assess an approximate playing strength (rating) to both players based on the game.

 

Thank you, my friend! happy

MaetsNori

Tate looks to be around 1200 - 1400 FIDE strength. (He made several inaccurate/inferior moves and even a few blunders.)

Morgan looks to be around 200 FIDE strength (a technical impossibility, yes, since FIDE only goes as low as 1000) ... Morgan appears to know how the pieces move, with very little knowledge beyond that.

Morgan's poor play created the illusion that Tate is a strong player. It's quite easy to look good when your opponent hands you all their pieces.

The computer estimating Tate at 2200 (Candidate Master strength) is ... terribly inaccurate.

luh_gio
Boinicq wrote:

Top G as always 

 

Lord_Gaiyan-Coskey
Kraig wrote:
toxic_internet wrote:

"chess.com's 'Coach Mode' analysis (Available to those in Beta) compares the play to that of a 2748 strength player, although it also assesses Piers Morgans strength at 1729"

How and where does one find/access this tool?


Follow this link to join the Beta program: https://support.chess.com/article/328-how-do-i-join-the-beta
From there, when you conduct a 'Game Review', at the end of the Analysis, it'll assess an approximate playing strength (rating) to both players based on the game.

So will my comment gain me the required point to be able to join? I guess I'll find out.

Edit: It did, yay!

sonicunleshed

I found the fact that Piers kept dissing Tate throughout the match when he was clearly making multiple mistakes throughout the game rather amusing.