A Chess Novice Challenged Magnus Carlsen | Hacker News Reader

A Chess Novice Challenged Magnus Carlsen

wsj.com

73 pointsmudil45 comments

I agree that this article was superbly written, but hubris really is the best word I can find to describe Max. Blundering a knight on move 11 is rookie chess. This is not an impressive feat. His pullup "success" is laughable. Lastly, can we kill the trope that solving a rubik's cube is impressive? It's deceptively simple and the algorithms are well within reach (google).

Exactly. This part of the article stood out particularly to me:

"After eight moves, using his own limited chess ability, the unthinkable was occurring: Max was winning."

Pure dramatic bluster. White has a built-in but small initiative in every game that engines will evaluate as a tiny advantage. This is basically what Max has at move 8. It is not much closer to a win than after his very first move (1. e4). I have to believe the deception of the writer here is intentional, since they did indeed consult with experts (e.g. Polgar).

How bout landing a standing backflip. Isn't that impressive? I know robots can do it, but Max is just meat.

In a month? Not particularly. There are plenty of youtube videos of people learning in hours/days.

Learning to backflip is almost entirely mental. With the proper coaching just about anyone in average-to-good shape can learn it in an afternoon (though not necessarily with great technique).

https://youtu.be/eMKoU_I4F1A?t=34

Is there a substantive difference between a physical skill perfected, versus a mental skill?

For me, its always the point when an article like this declares someone smart because they could memorize this or that at age X. Young children (~3 years old if I remember correclty) are the best in short term memory, slightly older is on average unbeatable in fact learning and so on. Nothing special about that, you are not the new Einstein just because you know 200 connected facts at age 7.

the text is not superbly written at all. it's an advertisement with lots of plot holes and utterly absurd formulations of any kind. just the sleep/sister analogy is so weird and pointless it made me cringe ...

I once challenged Magnus and, while I lost, did much much better than Max. Where's my WSJ puff piece?

https://youtu.be/sZFZBf6aTF4

Yea but did you write a Magnus-crushing ML algorithm then simulate it IN YOUR MIND?

Except, this guy never finished the ML algorithm either... So he had nothing to simulate. I don't get the purpose of this piece.

Ah, I was at Clever a day or two after this – what a cool experience! Also thanks to their team for teaching me Bughouse.

This is like reading about someone who thinks they can learn enough basketball in one month to beat the US Olympics team 1vs5.

The first few moves were “textbook” moves, meaning they are completely standard and neither side has an advantage YET. It’s like giving the “basketball player” credit for dribbling to half-court when nobody was pressing.

Alternative headline: "Silicon Valley Internet Person Is Vain, Amateurish".

Fun read, but man, the hubris! I play chess a fair bit and have gone through various stages of study, though admittedly never a month full time. But man, no way do I think Max could beat even an intermediate player (say 1800 ELO) 3 out of 5 games. It just isn't something you pick up in a month.

At least he developed his pieces. What I found interesting is that he decided to go the weird ML way, instead of spending the whole month solving tactics puzzles. The only thing he did that I recognize as advice that I already thought was good is playing against moderately stronger opponents and reviewing those games. As far as I know, chess and go take about a year of decent training to get to a "competent amateur" level.

That part really irks me as well. It sounds like a move for the cool factor that will go into a Medium post or book later, rather than a move to optimize for the best chance of beating Magnus.

Building a ML algorithm to beat Magnus is really not something to do in a month, not to mention replicating the ML algorithm by computing in his head.

I mean trying a nonconventional means of improving was the only thing in the article that made some sort of sense, since traditional methods of chess training would have certainly given him zero hope. Not that the ML method sounds remotely possible, but at least it gave the reader the ability to suspend some disbelief.

Some people are really good at chess. Some people are really good at self-promotion stunts.

As they say, it takes all kinds.

Beating Magnus seems very out of whack with the rest of his goals. Things like solving a Rubik's Cube in 14 seconds, and 40 pull ups are descent results, but far from world champion status. Maybe I missed the part where they explained why he was so ambitious on this challenge.

You can easily learn to solve a rubiks cube on the order of twenty seconds. It takes about a month of practice.

I have no clue why the pull ups are mentioned at all.

FYI the speed chess championship is ongoing and Magnus plays tomorrow... https://www.chess.com/article/view/2017-speed-chess-champion...

I was casually reading this article when I noticed a familiar bug when quickly moving the pieces. A quick "Inspect" reveals they are using one of my JavaScript components :)

https://chessboardjs.com/

I think his machine learning strategy goes to show how overhyped the field has become. Faced with an impossible situation? Machine learning! In my head!

A fraudster managed to devise a scheme to get famous,probably thinking his new found fame will net him some money.Weird WSJ is promoting this individual and that Magnus accepted his bogus "challenge".

I don't really get all the negative dismissal here and I'm frequently saying "meh" to myself at a lot of things people get excited about. (For example, Max's shock-level-2 level of excitement and thought about the future.)

How is he a fraudster? Who is he deceiving? Will any one of us think about him in a month? How exactly does a goal of solving a crossword puzzle fit into trying to get famous after 12 months?

He's got daily posts about this stuff, it's not hard to evaluate his honesty. I was curious how he managed to learn enough Hebrew to converse for 30 minutes on a topic. In the intro post he states: "Like most other challenges, I’m not starting from zero: I studied Hebrew at Brown for a few semesters, and also lived in Tel Aviv for six-months during my junior year of college." That's a huge advantage to have. But he's not being secretive about it. Maybe the inference of not actually starting from scratch is lost when being reported by media, but I'm more likely to blame the media than the individual. It's a fun human interest story and serves as a good reminder that rapid advancement in a skill is possible even when you work full time. Especially when you work full time and can afford to pay for assistance, in fact.

This was a really pleasant read, and everyone in the situation looks good afterwords. Clearly it's two people who are challenging themselves in their own ways, and you can't help but think "what if I really pushed myself that hard?" after reading it.

This is a very well written article but I think it's less about Chess, and more about the ideal of being able to learn anything, and with a short amount of time, upload that learning directly into the brain. Matrix style, or at least Limitless. Chess is an extraordinary complex game for humans, and I give Max many points for having both the audacity, and mental fortitude to try it.

This does seem a little bit of a puff piece, more like a human interest story wrapped in some compelling writing. However, there is a part of me that wishes he could have at least drawn Marcus. To beat him would have probably crashed HN... :)

These are Max's pullups for his "40 pullup challenge": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-3t9KuGhuo

Something tells me this guy is cutting a few corners.

Is the issue that he's not going low enough? Or that he's swinging his body?

Not going low enough. A pullup requires you to straighten your arms completely to 180 degrees. He's not even getting to 90 degrees. It's not anything resembling a real pullup.

It was the one challenge video I clicked through because it seemed like the most difficult. 40 pullups is a hard task.

I wish Max wouldn't lie to market himself.

His definition of a pull-up for purposes of the challenge was to reach 90°, but I agree that he doesn't do so in this video.

https://medium.com/the-mission/my-month-long-quest-for-40-pu...

You can look at his other projects, and he seems to do well under his definitions of success. He emphasizes that he's not starting from zero with respect to (almost) any of these skills.

https://medium.com/@maxdeutsch/m2m-day-1-completing-12-ridic...

I could define an apple to be a banana. It doesn't make it accurate.

I can run a marathon in 2 minutes. By the way, my marathons are 20 feet.

When doing proper pull-ups you have to hang while keeping your back muscles engaged and with hands wider than your shoulders; pulling yourself up from that position is challenging. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oYpSV-_gBaE

Bottom - arms straight. Top - chin above the bar.

Anything less than that is not a pull-up.

I'll disagree slightly with posters who say that your arms should be straight 180 degrees at the bottom of the movement, since you want to keep your shoulders engaged throughout; a slight bend through the elbow is best, I think.

But by slight I mean 170 degrees or something, not 80 or whatever this guy is doing.

haha, good point. 0 pull-ups done.

Nice find.

You can just look at his build to know the kid can't do 40 pullups. And that's the red flag that tells you most everything else could be equal BS. Lies are like cockroaches.

Oh my...those are quarter pullups at best.

Flexed arm-hangs

Well, he uses sigmoid instead of relu, perhaps trying to make up for it!? https://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/BN-WE337_CHESSL_M_...

I hate when you do something just to achieve the end result and not realize the real purpose behind anything that you do. My point is not that his form is bad. Its to do with any sort of competitive physical exercise.

You want to do 40 pullups properly in perfect form ? Sure, you can train for it, optimize every part of the movement, get proper nutrition and do it.

But is that the main objective ? If it is, then fine. But if your objective is to strengthen your lats and grip strength then there is no point in doing a single set of 40 reps. Split your set into 15 reps. And do 4 or 5 of them. Pace it properly and with perfect breathing. And concentrate on your lats. Squeeze them hard and expand fully, go slow on the negative. There's too many things if you go into the details.

what's up with HN and these personal-marketing puff pieces? read almost like any old Wired article.

it is a well written fiction, that stretches reality far and wide. Should be in the literature section of the newspaper. why is this even near news?

spoiler: He lost every single game he ever played with his month of "training". And here is a golden passage on the "article":

""" Max played three matches [with amateurs in a park] that day. He lost all three. The only sign his month of preparation might not be an epic waste of time was that one of his opponents happened to be wearing jeans made by G-Star—the same G-Star that once sponsored Magnus Carlsen. """ ...what does that even mean?!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com