Chess.com novice tries to think like a computer but (surprise) still can't beat Magnus

Sort:
chesster3145
Nabium wrote:
notmtwain wrote:

Some of you guys are awfully cynical- calling him a cheat or a fraud with little or no evidence. I think the video of him doing a back flip is very convincing. The blues improv was pretty impressive.  His "relative" pitch performance is better than 99% of you could do. His pullups may not be regulation but I doubt most of us could come close. I haven't examined the others. 

The chess algorithm development may not have worked. I am sceptical that it would ever work since it would require sustained mental gymnastics during the course of a game but it was still a fascinating attempt.  

All in ,  I think he has a lot to be legitimately proud over.

 

No, that argument doesn't work. Because the reason I called him a fraud was not because the things he did wasn't impressive, I said very openly it was a good idea and it was impressive. But when he labeled them as almost impossible, and build such a hype around it, he was more building up his own ego than trying to inspire others. Do you really not see the difference there? Sure you Americans use so much hyperbolisms you've become insensitive to it. But that shows nothing less than the whole American culture having a fraudulent disposition. When you guys couldn't see how much of a fraud Hillary and Donald was, you sort of lost all respect in my book. This guy is just another American, to me, fits my view of American gullibility perfectly.

 

The WSJ video they published, with the music, and the interview build up, and the camera shots, it all pretended there was a real match between the two. The guy had a performance of a 900 player. Any one in this chat would have done a better job than him. It's just completely absurd that he is being taken seriously after this, and particularly by us chess players. At least we know what we're talking about here. We ow it to the world to announce that this whole match setup was a fraud, maybe it seems cynical to you but sometimes outing a trickster is the only right thing to do.

Let’s light up Change.org?

macer75
chesster3145 wrote:
Nabium wrote:
notmtwain wrote:

Some of you guys are awfully cynical- calling him a cheat or a fraud with little or no evidence. I think the video of him doing a back flip is very convincing. The blues improv was pretty impressive.  His "relative" pitch performance is better than 99% of you could do. His pullups may not be regulation but I doubt most of us could come close. I haven't examined the others. 

The chess algorithm development may not have worked. I am sceptical that it would ever work since it would require sustained mental gymnastics during the course of a game but it was still a fascinating attempt.  

All in ,  I think he has a lot to be legitimately proud over.

 

No, that argument doesn't work. Because the reason I called him a fraud was not because the things he did wasn't impressive, I said very openly it was a good idea and it was impressive. But when he labeled them as almost impossible, and build such a hype around it, he was more building up his own ego than trying to inspire others. Do you really not see the difference there? Sure you Americans use so much hyperbolisms you've become insensitive to it. But that shows nothing less than the whole American culture having a fraudulent disposition. When you guys couldn't see how much of a fraud Hillary and Donald was, you sort of lost all respect in my book. This guy is just another American, to me, fits my view of American gullibility perfectly.

 

The WSJ video they published, with the music, and the interview build up, and the camera shots, it all pretended there was a real match between the two. The guy had a performance of a 900 player. Any one in this chat would have done a better job than him. It's just completely absurd that he is being taken seriously after this, and particularly by us chess players. At least we know what we're talking about here. We ow it to the world to announce that this whole match setup was a fraud, maybe it seems cynical to you but sometimes outing a trickster is the only right thing to do.

Let’s light up Change.org?

Yeah, that's gonna make a difference...

Haruwaki

Of course he was winning after the first moves .  He was playing white...  doooh. Not unless he did something like King e2 on the second move .  he will be +  on the first moves.  Just sayin

AmbroseWinters

If they ever rematch, it would be hilarious if Magnus trolled Max by playing the Cornstalk Defense and won easily anyway.

chesster3145

Yes.

president_max

not particularly impressed with this 40 pull up range of motion either - although he did state his target was at least 90 degrees elbow instead of dead hang (which he did not meet)

in a physical fitness test that would not even count as 1, since the 1st one was a jump.

 

magnus would easily beat him in good form pull ups.

Haruwaki

I find it a bit odd, that from all of his 11 challenges, playing  Magnus  is the first of them all where he actually isnt challenging himself and his limitations. Rather he challenged someone else who is top of  their game.  The result was obvious. As it would be obvious if he challenged the worlds greatest ultra realistic painter to compete for who makes the most realistic self portrait.  Or challenge someone like john lee hooker for a 5 minute improvisational blues guitar solo.   If his goal on the first 11 challenges was to prove he can learn anything in a month.  Well...  why did he feel the need to challenge, in this case, the very top chess player?  Wouldnt his point be well made, if he simply made yet another  self/solo challenge and try and beat  stockfish or houdini after a month of training?  I fail to see how this challenge relates to all others.   What i see, is that he did complete all challenges, yes,  but none of them transformed him into the Top figure of each challenge.  Beating magnus (to challenge the top seed of a certain area)  , that seems to me he altered his course, into proving he could become the master of all humans in one of those challenges.  Anywho....

Haruwaki

First 11 challenges .   "i can do it "

Final challenge    " i can do it better then anyone else.

Here lies the diference .  

Pulpofeira

Possibly the whole thing was intended to reach the audience, the spank and the publicity.

Debistro

I read somewhere before, a book written by a GM who said, "It's harder to climb Mt Everest than to beat Garry Kasparov". That was written way back when Kasparov was World Champ.

Same can be said for Magnus Carlsen now. And this guy thinks he can do it in one month....LOL. Better he climb Mt Everest instead. That's easier.

Elroch

Objectively speaking, a great many more people have climbed Everest  than could beat Kasparov, and a even more are capable of doing so.

Hence in the simplest quantitative sense the GM was wrong. It is safer to lose to Kasparov, though.

Pulpofeira

Yes, no problem on losing a game of chess. If it was boxing I suppose Max would have thought it twice.

SmyslovFan
Debistro wrote:

I read somewhere before, a book written by a GM who said, "It's harder to climb Mt Everest than to beat Garry Kasparov". That was written way back when Kasparov was World Champ.

Same can be said for Magnus Carlsen now. And this guy thinks he can do it in one month....LOL. Better he climb Mt Everest instead. That's easier.

I think you misread the quote. I think he said it would be harder to beat Kasparov than to climb Mount Everest. 

hairhorn

I would think so, dozens of people climb Everest every year. Probably fewer deaths in chess, though. 

macer75
Pulpofeira wrote:

Possibly the whole thing was intended to reach the audience, the spank and the publicity.

He got spanked all right.

dfgh123

it would be easier to try to beat kasparov than try to climb mount everest

Elroch

I think it's easier to get transport to Nepal than to arrange a game with Kasparov.

Gil-Gandel

What would be really brilliant would be if he wandered into a bookmaker about a year ago and said "hey, I've never played chess in my life - what will you bet me that within a year I can get a game against the world champion and it'll be in all the papers?". grin.png

chesster3145

Like a certain chess tourist named Max Deutsch? tongue.png

HobbyPIayer
cap78red wrote:

in my third ever game I beat a 1800 elo player and in my 5 th I drew with a 1816

Impressive for a beginner. But still—a beginner beating an 1800 is a far cry from a beginner beating a 2800.

Even an experienced 2500-level Grandmaster stands little chance against Magnus. To think that a novice could beat him after a month's training is silly.