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....
Chess.com novice tries to think like a computer but (surprise) still can't beat Magnus
First 11 challenges . "i can do it "
Final challenge " i can do it better then anyone else.
Here lies the diference .
Possibly the whole thing was intended to reach the audience, the spank and the publicity.
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.
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.
Yes, no problem on losing a game of chess. If it was boxing I suppose Max would have thought it twice.
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.
I would think so, dozens of people climb Everest every year. Probably fewer deaths in chess, though.
Possibly the whole thing was intended to reach the audience, the spank and the publicity.
He got spanked all right.
it would be easier to try to beat kasparov than try to climb mount everest
I think it's easier to get transport to Nepal than to arrange a game with Kasparov.
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?". 
Like a certain chess tourist named Max Deutsch? 
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.
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.
I dont remember my third game ever, but I didn't even know how all the pieces moved and it was probably a 200 rated player that easily beat me. To beat a 1800 player for someones third game is incredibly impressive, I think far more impressive than any of the feats Max accomplished. Someone studying hard for a month and beating the world champion seems more possible to me than a beginner beating an 1800. Only a true genius could do either one.
just because somebody is playing their third game doesn't mean they are a beginner.
tournament game, i mean. used to be all kinds of unrated players taking home prizes in open events.
tournament game, i mean. used to be all kinds of unrated players taking home prizes in open events.
True.
But I assume that poster meant he'd only played two games of chess in his life prior to beating an 1800.
The reincarnation of Morphy?
tournament game, i mean. used to be all kinds of unrated players taking home prizes in open events.
True.
But I assume that poster meant he'd only played two games of chess in his life prior to beating an 1800.
The reincarnation of Morphy?
That's what I assumed also. If it was his third (tournament) game ever it could also have been his third (grandmaster) game ever or his third (assisted) game ever or third (professional) game ever. In which case it wouldn't have been so impressive. It seems to me third game ever means third game ever.
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.