Could I Beat Magnus Carlsen?
Sort:
magipi wrote:
llama36 wrote:
You'll calculate a lot of superfluous garbage in situations where they'll lock on to the critical line and so one quick calculation and they're already done analyzing.
No. How could they know in any position what the "critical line" is? It is only critical in hindsight.
Instead, they calculate a lot of superfluous garbage extremely quickly and efficiently. In a slow game, they do it before every move.
They don't. How do they know what to calculate? Intuition built by experience, work and talent.
May 18, 2024
0
#27
Sure one can beat Carlson. Especially in a Simul.. Just offer him.10000 USD.
AbbyTheButcher wrote:
Okay I know this is a bit out there but bear with me. Obviously on any given day in rapid/blitz/etc. Magnus could probably wipe the floor with me. Also I am not necessarily talking about me specifically but in general relatively lower ranked players who have a decent grasp on the game as not to be a complete beginner.
In theory, is it possible to beat Magnus Carlsen as a 700 chess.com ranked player? Like if given classical time controls and actually playing each move carefully taking as much time as necessary to avoid blundering. I know everybody blunders once in a while even GMs and I've also seen a few times on this site where somebody low ranked gets lucky and beats someone significantly higher in rank than them. So if Magnus is just having a slightly off day, the beginner is hyper analyzing every move, and there is plenty of time for said "beginner" to fully blunder check, would it be possible? Could I even? Magnus wold throww you and crush like new born baby haiyaah think think dont be lake jamei oliver haiyah
play4fun64 wrote:
Sure one can beat Carlson. Especially in a Simul.. Just offer him.10000 USD. Where will uncle roger go for tat kinf of money haiyah
Llama36: just watch any GM analyze their game in the post mortem. They sometimes do it on camera for the fans. They show that they calculated every line to the end.
N-no... in post-game interviews they'll generally give a 4-6 move variation and render an evaluation.
Maybe it's a language issue... maybe you don't mean "calculate" the same way I do. For example in my own games, I might decide a move is bad because I know certain patterns... ok, like the 5 move smothered mate for example. I can "see" that and avoid it without calculating the individual moves the same way an adult reads a word without looking at individual letters. But maybe you would call that calculation. Maybe we're using the word differently.
We are not using the word differently.
Of course, if you notice a pattern and you know that some move is good or bad, but that happens only occasionally. In most positions there are many plausible candidate moves and many implausible ones.
What do you think GMs are doing when they play a single slow game for 5 hours? What are they thinking about? Their lineup in their NBA Fantasy League game? No. They calculate a lot, they calculate even seemingly crazy moves, because they do not want to get crushed by an unlikely-looking tactical blow.
Well for example, I might calculate a 2-3 move sequence where I open the c file but my opponent can use c4 as an outpost for their knight. If it's not a situation I immediately understand then I'll spend some time trying to figure out if that's ok.
So, without calculating, I imagine my rook on c1 their knight on c4. Can I play around the knight (ignore it). Can I sacrifice my rook for the knight? How many moves will it take my opponent to get there and can I use those moves to make something else happen? Which squares / pieces will be vulnerable when my opponent is making this maneuver? If I get 3 free moves in a row, how can I pressure those squares / pieces?
Some positions are calm and have no tactics... so move-by-move calculation is pointless. So I sit there thinking about things like this.
Okay, I have to admit that we DID use the word "calculation" diffierently. What you are describing above is calculation in my book.
Ok