Bill Gates loses to Magnus Carlsen in 9 moves | Hacker News Reader

Bill Gates loses to Magnus Carlsen in 9 moves

nbcnews.com

251 pointsprateekj137 comments

Actually, Carlsen was playing for tricks (as might be reasonable when you have just 30 seconds). Bill Gates had a winning position on the 9th move. If instead of 9. Nxe5?? which allows an immediate checkmate, he had played 9. Re1!, he would have had a huge advantage. I'm an international master, and more importantly, my computer backs up my opinion.

I'm surprised Carlsen played a game with just 30 seconds on his clock; it's easy to lose in that situation since you simply don't have enough time to make more than about 30 moves. And by the way, the best player in the world at ridiculously short time controls ("bullet chess") like 1 minute for the game is Hikaru Nakamura, the top-rated American player, not Magnus Carlsen. Nakamura tends to play soundly in these time controls. Look at this video for a game where Nakamura plays against Grandmaster Max Dlugy (another bullet chess expert) with kibitzing by Grandmaster Ben Finegold: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzrap8Vtyq8

Carlsen actually said he was just playing that for tricks, and started trying to explain this in the Skarvlan show itself, but camera pans quickly away.

The episode is available here http://www.svtplay.se/video/1753565/del-3-av-12 but you need to understand Norwegian (speech) or Swedish (subtitles).

Edit: The preamble to the chess game starts at 53:00 and is in English.

> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bzrap8Vtyq8

I'm going to go for the most pedestrian, naive chess commentary ever by noting that at 0:20 it looks like there is a road through the middle of the board.

If you mean the vertical line (horizontal from camera perspective) of squares with no pieces on it, that's called an open file, and it's an important concept in chess. Rooks on an open file are generally more powerful.

That makes sense, though I was looking more at the diagonal formation that starts at the bottom left, goes up and into the middle, and then down back into the right corner. It looks like a tree-lined boulevard with a bend in it. :)

Can you explain what does "playing for tricks" mean in chess?

It means making knowingly inferior moves in order to set a trap that you are hoping your opponent will fall for (which Gates did). Normally not something serious chess players do, but I guess this is a weird situation.

Depending on regional dialect - it can also mean playing to capture pieces (i.e. like 'taking tricks' in card games) rather than with an overall strategy.

Is not knowing your opponent part of the strategy? Carlsen played the 'tricks' way he did because he knew, or felt reasonably certain that Gates would fall for them. Critiquing his play based on what you would do in Gates' position is simply wrong, because I'm assuming the #1 chess player in the world would play differently had he been playing against an international master such as yourself.

I don't think Carlsen was at all certain Gates would fall for those tricks. I just don't think Carlsen would care if he lost. People are assuming a lot of things. They're assuming that Carlsen wants to win at all costs. The same with Gates. Carlsen did what he wanted because the outcome didn't really matter to him.

Kind of like Gates beating Shaq in a basketball game and then analyzing the strategy of each player to try to understand how that happened.

> People are assuming a lot of things

> "Carlsen did what he wanted because the outcome didn't really matter to him."

Hmm.. didn't you just make an assumption too regarding Carlsen's state of mind and motives?

Honestly both you and the OP seem to be engaging in pure speculation.

no, i didn't assume anything. I reason that if you play a TRICK from the beginning, you don't really care to win. You're playing for a good time. To amuse non chess players.

You are thinking of poker

When the difference in level is so big you can use the opponent time to think. Bill has 2:00, but Carlsen has 2:30 :) (I’m not an international master, but I played a lot of chess while I was a child, including some matches with 5:00 for me and 2:00 for the other player.)

Yeah, but Carlsen had just 30 seconds, which restricts the number of moves he can physically play (I'd say that it takes 1 secod to play a move).

That video you linked is insane. I couldn't even see what moves they are making. It reminded me of chess between Joey and Phoebe. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n_zq_M9OGk Thank you for sharing.

in the speed chess video above, why did both players advance all their pieces off the back rows for the midpoint of the game?

I think the rationale in bullet chess is that playing strategically isn't going to help and you're in less danger of getting checkmated. From that point of view, you might as well prepare for the endgame, so the best way to do that is to keep the king in the center of the board while connecting your rooks.

you're surprised that Carlsen played a "fake" for fun game with 30 seconds on the clock because he could easily LOSE? And because his reputation would take a total DIVE? And also because he's not the NUMBER ONE bullet player?

There is an IM in Boston who routinely gives people, mostly without regard for their rating, 30 seconds to 5 minutes odds with no increment. I have seen him win these controls against other masters. So comparatively it is not too surprising that Carlsen would be willing to accept these odds against an unrated amateur. Chess with this kind of time controls is basically a different game, which requires emphasis on different skills than do standard time controls.

   1. e4    Nc6
   2. Nf3   d5
   3. Bd3   Nf6
   4. exd5  Qxd5
   5. Nc3   Qh5
   6. 0-0   Bg4
   7. h3    Ne5

   ╔═══════════════╗
   ║♜ … … … ♚ ♝ … ♜║
   ║♟ ♟ ♟ … ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟║
   ║… … … … … ♞ … …║
   ║… … … … ♞ … … ♛║
   ║… … … … … … ♝ …║
   ║… … ♘ ♗ … ♘ … ♙║
   ║♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ … ♙ ♙ …║
   ║♖ … ♗ ♕ … ♖ ♔ …║
   ╚═══════════════╝


   8. hxg4  Nfxg4
   9. Nxe5  Qh2#

   ╔═══════════════╗
   ║♜ … … … ♚ ♝ … ♜║
   ║♟ ♟ ♟ … ♟ ♟ ♟ ♟║
   ║… … … … … … … …║
   ║… … … … ♘ … … …║
   ║… … … … … … ♞ …║
   ║… … ♘ ♗ … … … …║
   ║♙ ♙ ♙ ♙ … ♙ ♙ ♛║
   ║♖ … ♗ ♕ … ♖ ♔ …║
   ╚═══════════════╝

I'm no expert, but since all the other comments are just complaining, here are my (very amateur) thoughts:

1. e4

The most common opening in chess. Bill knows he's supposed to bring out some knights and bishops in these next few moves, which is good!

1. ... Nc6 2. Nf3 d5

Both black moves aim for an open center so he can make it a fast game with plenty options to attack. His move invites Bill to waste a turn changing the center from pawn vs pawn to queen vs nothing. To his credit Bill resists capturing for a bit!

3. Bd3

Doesn't make much sense to block your queen pawn like this. Of course he's trying to support e4 or win d5, but he's tying himself in knots.

3. ... Nf6 4. exd5 Qxd5

Magnus is ahead in development.

5. Nc3 Qh5

I'm sure Magnus would have played more conservatively against a better player. But in this case, he might as well attack!

6. 0-0

Seems like Bill stepped right into the line of fire here, but his blocked queen pawn makes everything else hard to move.

6. ... Bg4

Pinning the knight. This immobilizes yet another piece and makes Bill's queen even more stuck.

7. h3

Moving the pawns in front of your castled king usually weakens your defenses. And hxg4 is suicidal.

7. ... Ne5

Attack! Magnus is happy to give up material to gain time and open vulnerabilities.

8. hxg4 Nfxg4 9. Nxe5

Getting greedy, but even if he did something else, was there was any way to stop that queen?

I've lost games more quickly than Bill, and not to grandmasters, so props to him for at least making reasonable moves.

That analysis looks fine except for the end.

At the end, Bill's 9. Nxe5 resulted in an immediate checkmate. Instead, 9. Re1 (Rook one square to the left) stops the mate since it gives white's king an escape route. In an even match, the game would be winning for white at that point because Magnus sacrificed a bishop for his now-failed attack.

Magnus screwed up big-time or was goofing around. He would still be able to beat Gates from that losing position, but I'm very surprised he let that happen.

I just watched the show on local tv and Magnus commented afterwards that he did something against his principles and gambled that he could trick Bill into it.

As a kid I played a lot of chess with one of my childhood friends. I was always (almost?) winning.

Imagine my surprise when in high-school I played with a guy who learned to play chess as a kid. He beat me just as fast as Bill Gates got beaten. Then he beat me, but slower in subsequent 7 games that day and then some over the following months. But one day I finally beat him. I guess he got a little careless after all that wins and I learned good bit from him.

Interestingly I beat his ass in checkers every time. Also interestingly roughly about the same time I played chess with an actual math genius (distance between two lines of his reasoning required whole page of careful explanation for me) and he was making dumbest moves I've seen because he barely ever played chess before.

Games are not about thinking. By thinking long and hard you can get to 5-10% of skill of a master. The rest is learning from books and stronger opponents.

I had another friend. He had played significantly more unreal tournament than quake, I just the opposite. I was kicking his ass 50 to 1 in quake even on a slower computer with smaller monitor and crappier mouse, but he was kicking my ass 50 to 1 in Unreal Tournament and I wasn't bad at that game. I was as good as any of my friends except for this guy.

I guess my point is that skill is very specific to the game and must be earned.

"Bill Gates loses to LeBron James 232 - 0"

Not sure what outcome was expected...

It's Friday - News can be fun sometimes you know.

The part that makes it news is that Bill Gates and Magnus Carlsen sat down and played chess, not that Gates lost.

Next time they should try doing a quick sort in Basic ;)

I do think it's a fun story. But the lede isn't "Bill Gates Plays Chess with Magnus Carlsen", it isn't even "Bill Gates loses to Magnus Carlsen". It's "Bill Gates loses to Magnus Carlsen in 9 moves".

Anderson Cooper once raced Michael Phelps and that was every gay man's dream.

Sometimes it's not about being competitive. It's just TV.

Carlsen visited Google last week and played 10 simultaneous games against Googlers. Chessbase did a writeup here:

http://en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-google

TL;DR: Carlsen went 10-0 with only one close game, against the highest rated player (2168)

Not a very avid chess player but I had a lot of fun going over your game notes. Thanks and congrats for the achievements in that game.

There is a Derren Brown (UK Illusionist) piece where he plays seven opponents at once, walking round in a big circle, and amazingly wins 4 out of 7.

Afterwards the explanation is simple - he played 6 masters or grandmasters, and one guy off the street. And simply (!) memorised the moves of player A and made them against player C, B to D etc. All he had to do was play a decent game against the guy off the street and he would always beat 50%

That's a quite clever application of the one ahead principle

That's quite a security hack. The Grandmasters are being made to play each other via him - they are kind of oracles.

He was probably inspired by a sub-plot in Sydney Sheldon's "If Tomorrow Comes" (1985).

This works only if the colors are reversed in subsequent boards. To avoid this trick, all traditional simuls (short for simultaneous play - where one chess master plays many people) have two simple rules: 1)The chess master has the same color in all the boards 2) The color of the chess master's pieces are usually white

Since white always makes the first move in a chess game, it is not possible to copy the game from board A and play it in board B with reverse colors.

Make me appreciate Go that much more - to me, Go seems a much more enjoyable game when the opponents are mismatched.

Even though I'm pretty good at Go, it's enjoyable to play with a beginner. You don't have to trounce them to find satisfaction.

Magnus had a 30 second clock, so he basically had to trounce him.

I'm very new to Go, but I am continually impressed and amazed at its depth and beauty. A few tiny simple rules producing such complex gameplay is really awe-inspiring. Chess, with its many types of pieces, limited moves, many rules just doesn't have the same elegance.

yeah, go is fun.

i'm always surprised to find out who's good at go. i've known some video game developers to be better than some grad students.

so to return to the article, being good at these games, like any other skill, is, in part, a matter of practice. i don't think gates need (or does, actually) feel, "intellectually inadequate," unless he's been practicing chess almost full-time for the past 10 years.

The amazing part for someone like me who knows just basic chess is how aggressive Carlsen was. It’s scary seeing him coming on you with all those pieces and instantaneous moves. It also gives you a measure of his grandeur. It seems BillG got panicked given the little time he had to think his moves; at least I’d do.

Carlsen had a 30 second clock. Even an average player should've been able to put Carlsen into time pressure at that point, assuming you didn't fall into any silly traps like Gates did.

It is a trick actually. The more time the opponent has, the easier it is for Carlsen, as he uses his opponents turn time to think. An average player doesn't have the skill to put him under pressure.

+edit: you also usually get an extra second or two ( depending on the total time ) per move.

Yeah he has time to think when the opponent is moving, but 30 seconds just isn't a lot of time if you consider there is a minimum practical time per move just based on the physical reality of being a human that has to move the piece and hit the clock, as illustrated pretty well by Carlsen's move where he knocked over a piece and burnt something like 3 seconds on one move.

I think any decently skilled (but non-world-class) chess player could have run him down just by playing defensively. Of course, that would have been terrible tv, so we got someone who probably only plays casually getting steam-rolled by the "Justin Bieber of chess".

"Justin Beiber of chess".

'The Mozart of chess' is the general consensus. The 'Justin Beiber of chess' is rather insulting.

I agree with you, I was sarcastically quoting the article this was linked to.

2nd paragraph under the video:

""Wow, that was fast," he said to Carlsen, whose rockstar appeal has won him the moniker the "Justin Bieber of chess.""

Haha ouch. That's awful.

I couldn't agree more! Why would anyone come up with "Justin Bieber of Chess"?

Freelance journalists aren't paid by the word anymore, they are paid by the Bieber. No sense writing an article without the word Bieber in it, that's not worth a dime.

No one would've been talking about it if they said Mozart of Chess.

I used to play against a chess master, with 5 minutes on my clock and 30 seconds on his. He routinely crushed me.

I also used to play against some amateur chess players with 30 seconds on my clock and 5 minutes on theirs. I routinely crushed them.

Even with 30 seconds, a significantly better player will still almost always win.

Its not really. If I was Bill I would've played a very passive game, shutting down the middle of the board as quickly as possible. Create as complex a middle game as possible, and let Carslen go all in on sacrifices or whatever he'd need to do to break the board open. Deny as many exchanges as possible, win on time.

Disagree. In 30 seconds Carlsen has a much higher recall of the vast number of boards he has played than an average person. This is a mismatch even if Bill Gates is really smart. So in 30 seconds whatever plans an average chess player can conjure up, Carlsen has already seen them 10 moves ahead.

From my other comment: If I was Bill I would've played a very passive game, shutting down the middle of the board as quickly as possible. Create as complex a middle game as possible, and let Carslen go all in on sacrifices or whatever he'd need to do to break the board open. Deny as many exchanges as possible, win on time.

Carlsen quickly realized Bill was a push over and started parking all his pieces on white's kingside as quickly as possible. Bill basically played as poorly as could be expected. To get mated in 9 moves means you've basically forced yourself to lose.

But to execute this strategy well, Bill would have to be much better than he is. Carlsen will crush Bill every time, even if Bill knows ahead of time to play a passive, closed position.

Yes, basically Bill is very bad at chess.

Gates is a below average player. If you're 50 years old and haven't picked up a bat since little league, you're a below average baseball player.

he's a below average chess player playing with 2 minutes on the clock. 30 seconds is comfortable for carlsen, whereas Gates probably doesn't play at 2 minutes regularly. 2 minutes is insanely small amount of time for people that don't play.

Surprisingly this has brought some memories, I remember my father beating me in a chess game exactly the same way in just a few moves, back when I was a kid, my chess knowledge to this day sums up to knowing how the pieces move, and my father I think knew some more chess theory regarding strategy, but wasn't even a competitive player, so my laymen impression is that this was a really unremarkable game.

Would someone competent at chess be so kind and explain what did Bill do wrong? Does this class of mistakes (castling "locking" the king in the corner) have a name?

Gate's first mistake wasn't castling, but taking Carlsen's pawn without having a sufficient a sufficient buildup for the exchange. He lost the center of the board as a result.

That's just my two cents as I haven't played competitively since middle school.

In general, castling is a good thing. In this case, and in retrospect, it was unwise. Carlsens pieces were aiming at the king side so further development and then castling queen side would have made more sense. I think Gates' first mistake was 3. Bd3. It blocks the d-pawn and the bishop isn't very active at Bd3. The computer gives white a small advantage after 2. .. d5 but a disadvantage after Bd3. It prefers to just take the pawn.

With low depth the computer also plays Gates 4th to 6th move. So despite the threads on the king side castling seems possible. 6. h3 is not recommended but it thinks Blakcks response 7 .. Ne5 is a blunder. However, with his last move, allowing the mate, Gates really blunders. If he would have played Re1 instead the computer gives an advantage of almost 3 pawns.

Note: the computer was Stockfish

My dad once challenged me (again) and I really didn't want to play, so I ran Fool's Mate on him (I had read it in some book of chess challenges). He never asked again, it was kind of ruined for him... Gotta watch those teenagers, I wasn't nice sometimes when my free reading was being interrupted.

Edit: glad I grew up some...

Not to nitpick, but I'm sure you mean Scholar's Mate, where you attack the pawn in front of the king's bishop with two pieces (usually queen and bishop/knight) and win in 4 moves or so. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholar%27s_mate

Many people erroneously call this fool's mate, but fool's mate is actually the shortest chess game possible (win in 2 moves), which is virtually impossible (you'd have to be playing against someone that really doesn't know what they're doing AND they'd have to move the two specific pawns to allow it). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool%27s_mate

Thank you, yes, he moved a piece or two outside of the pattern, but everything else worked a treat: Queen and Bishop trapped his King, I think maybe 7 moves or so, including the stumbles.

I will answer my own question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back-rank_checkmate

If you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.

This was not about judging, it was just a bit of fun.

I know. I just thought this was a good illustration of this commonly stated aphorism.

Some fishes climb trees. http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p003c3jk

Nobody is judging anybody! For god's sake, one is a world chess champion and the other is a tech mogul who ruled the software industry for nearly two decades. It's just fun to watch them sit together and play a game of chess.

Well, fish are pretty much stupid.

Are they or is it.. ?

They should play monopoly. The game would be over even faster.

Bill Gates already won all the Monopoly in 2001

Chess isn't his game, bridge is:

http://www.buffettcup.com/Default.aspx?tabid=69

http://www.thegatesnotes.com/Personal/What-Makes-for-a-Good-...

http://www.larryco.com/OldStuff/Gates4.html

It's funny because you know that in there somewhere Bill Gates must still have his former extremely competitive self, and getting beat so badly has got to be humbling. He's a great sport about it though.

A loss is painful only when you have reasonable chance to win.

Letting yourself get beat at chess, made fun of by talk shows or using self deprecating humor are strategies for making people to like you more. He got what he wanted, if he was just doing this to gain geek admiration.

I watched the Skavlan show tonight, and found the whole thing very fun. The true story of Irish adoptions was particularly harrowing, but the chess match lightened the load.

It didn't seem that Bill knew he was going to be asked to play chess, and he seemed to take it in good humour.

Bill prefaced the game with apologies that nobody should expect much and that he was a much better Go player.

Respect for Bill. That was impressive.

I'm not an avid Chess player but to play at that speed with his obviously gifted opponent and last that long is respectable.

There's nothing super special about an amazing chess player that would let them check mate you in 9 movies unless you play horrendously. Grand Masters are not super heros of chess. They are 'comprehensive.' Lets be real rather than gaudy.

I should mention that I am a chess master and have played GMs online.

This. Bill is a smart guy but that doesn't mean he played impressively well at all.

Yeah, this looks like it was filmed live during a talk show. I highly doubt there was any interest from anyone involved, especially the audience, for a lengthy game.

Having only two minutes on the clock and an opponent who plays really quickly would unnerve any inexperienced player and turn them quite easily into a horrendous player, IMHO.

Have you ever played against a formidable electronic opponent? I've heard they sometimes use unusual tactics.

If an amateur had 10 hours to think about each move of a chess game, and the GM he was playing against had 1 second for each move (and couldn't think on the amateur's time), the GM would still _crush_ the amateur. GMs kind of are super heroes of chess.

(it is true though that 9 moves is a silly short game. most amateurs would last longer)

That is simply incorrect. A GM can perhaps give a strong amateur (2000+) 1 to 5 time odds, maybe 1 to 7, in under a minute time controls. Larger odds would be arrogant, foolish or even suicidal, depending on the specific GM (rating, opening repertoire, etc.)

By amateur I was imagining ~1500. If in chess circles "amateur" means "anyone other than a master/grandmaster", then my statement as written is probably false!

Just to put this in context, any game in which you checkmate your opponent in under 20 moves is considered to be an incredibly quick game, where your opponent must have helped you by playing a really horrible move. The game is over before it has even started to develop. To be checkmated in 9 moves means you basically were making the worst possible move many times.

It would be easy for any marginally skilled chess player [1] to survive 20 moves against even the world champion. If Magnus was specifically playing to checkmate you quickly, 30 moves would be difficult and 40 moves would probably be impossible.

1: ~1500 UCSF strength

I just find the amount of time he lasted respectable. He could have lost based on the time running out. 9 moves is still better than losing out on 4-7 moves.

I don't play chess competitively or under a time clock so seeing that was impressive (I would have likely just frozen). Your point taken though.

What is the fewest number of moves than one can lose a game of chess assuming the losing side is trying to the worst possible.

The game can be over after each player makes two moves. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fool's_mate

I wonder how many moves a random valid move generator would be expected to survive against a master.

You mean if the generator chose a random move from the available legal options? Could easily be beat in ~10 moves or fewer, I'd bet.

I have read that bridge is his passion. Probably that is what he is better at.

I agree that it is cool that he did this.

The Gates biography 'Gates' by Stephen Manes recalls that Gates used to play chess against Paul Allen a great deal in the early days. IIRC, Gates would play very aggressively, leaving lots of opportunities to be attacked, and Allen would usually win the games. He was more of a poker player though.

> "Wow, that was fast," he said to Carlsen, whose rockstar appeal has won him the moniker the "Justin Bieber of chess."

"Justin Bieber of chess."

really?

But... isn't Magnus Carlsen good at chess? I don't understand...

What exactly is Justin Bieber so good at to earn such a comparison? Not singing, not composing music, not dancing .. no one has ever claimed he's the "world #1" at anything other than being celebrity amongst other pre-teen children.

And Magnus Carlsen is certainly not a celebrity amongst pre-teen children, so the comparison makes no sense.

Bieber is actually quite a good singer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ko8gepM8MBU.

It's easy to lose sight of that given his stardom, but he got his start based on raw singing talent.

Of course he's likely in the top 0.001% of singing talent, but would you say he's literally "the best" singer in the world regardless of age?

> What exactly is Justin Bieber so good at to earn such a comparison?

The key is right there in the sentence. The comparison being made is "rockstar of chess," referring not necessarily to "skill" or "talent," but to the ability to be famous worldwide.

I believe (belieb?) they are making a statement about how he has a more exciting style in chess, maybe his quick rise to fame and youth, maybe good looking appearance?. If you search "Justin Bieber of chess" you see lots of people are using it, not just this one article. I don't really follow chess, just Bieber, but Magnus seems interesting, going to be reading up on him! But I agree, it seems like an odd comparison.

The comparisons are "young" and "good looking".

Gates should challenge Carlsen to a speed game of Write the Disk Operating Sytem Before the Big Meeting Next Week, methinks.

Seeing as I went 16 moves against Kasparov as a complete noob to chess, does that make me better than Bill Gates? My programming ability and checkbook seem to disagree, however. :/

Bill Gates also famously plays cards and other one-on-one games with Warren Buffet. I would love to have an insight into the conversations that take place during those games.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP1nAvi85g0

Gates is actually a decent bridge player. Buffett, however, is definitely at expert level. He plays a lot online, generally with a former women's world champ as his partner.

Also, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontransitive_dice

Warren Buffet had a collection of non-transitive dice (dice with non-standard numbers, with special properties ... basically a paper-scissors-rock set of dice). He offered Bill a bet, and suggested Bill pick the dice first (and Warren would then pick the dice most likely to beat Bill's). Bill, of course, realised it was some sort of trick, and examined the dice, then suggested Warren pick first.

Best commentary of the match, by Jerry! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0QdI0rVoHA&feature=em-upload...

When you have all the openings memorised, as the champs do, it is not really playing until 10 or 20 moves in. It is not really playing a game in this situation, it is Magnus going through the motions.

That's only the case when both players know the openings and follow "textbook" moves throughout the opening. When playing against amateurs, you're usually out of the memorized lines in just a few moves, so at that point it just becomes tactical.

How long would it take you to lose against Mike Tyson in a boxing fight?

How many moves did it take for Magnus to beat Anand ?

His final match was 58 moves

3. Bd3?

Well, when I was a child, my chess playing future was taken down in flames by the chess program I had. In the easiest setting, I would lose in a few moves. That proved not to be very motivating.

Magnus Carlsen didn't start a billion dollar company, and Bill Gates isn't a chess god.

Why is this article on HN? Who cares?

Because it's fun to watch and I must say I was surprised to see that a genius like Gates played rather badly.

being a genius in one thing doesn't always translate into others ;)

Yeah because chess is an INCREDIBLY hard game to get good at regardless of how smart you are. I've been playing for years and going to my local chess club and I'm still trash ahaha.

Skill in chess requires (at Carlsen's level) a great deal of intuition and knowledge and practice. Bill Gates is a talented programmer and businessman. Unless chess was a personal passion or interest, there would be no reason to expect him to be any better than the average person under pressure, faced with a 2-minute clock and a world champion.

Yeah I'd say being smart doesn't necessarily help you play good chess - being dumb hurts, though.

I wonder when the last time Gates even played chess? And even though he had way more time than Magnus did, 2 minutes is not a lot of time... Most blitz games are 3 or 5 minutes and if you're not an avid player (or at least used to it) then it's really hard to play fast like that. Magnus probably didn't have to think at all since he already knew the opening, whereas Gates was probably on his own from the third move on.

Kudos to Gates for being a good sport.

Why is Bill Gates a genious?

It is finally established that being very good at chess is not a prerequisite for being a successful start-up founder!

Apparently a lot of people care. I also don't know why.

You're no fun sir.

What did people expect? For Bill Gates' bodyguards to break both of Magnus arms and Bill taunting him "whatsamatter bitch? are you gonna move? tick-tock".

Why is this on HN?

MS-DOS 13

How is this news? Magnus Carlsen is good at chess. Bill Gates is bad at chess. How does this story add value to anyone's life? What was learned here? (sincerely curious)

Fun.

If people are more interested in either Bill Gates or Magnus Carlsen, then here's a starting point. Many people likely don't know who Magnus is, now they do. Bill Gates' involvement makes it more likely that people would have watched the video.

Also, fun.

Hmm, I used to play lots of chess and still follow the chess world, so this wasn't interesting or educational to me. But if people who aren't familiar with chess or Magnus Carlsen still found it fun or interesting, then that's good enough for me. :)

Thanks for your sincere reply to my sincere question.

Most of the time when people achieve world-class ability in something, they end up exclusively competing against others that have a similar talent level. It's worthwhile (and fun) to be occasionally reminded just how much of a talent gap there is between them and the average person.

I see. I guess what's obvious to me - that a grandmaster can crush a chump in 30 seconds - is not obvious to all. I'm glad that so many people find it interesting.

I think that's true, particularly if you are well-versed in chess. The outcome that Carlsen would win is obvious to everyone, but the details – the actual minutia of the game – are not.

For example (and I'm not a chess player), if you told me that Carlsen and Gates played and asked me to guess how many moves it would take for Carlsen to win, I would've put it in the 15-20 range. Nine was a genuine surprise. Even more enlightening, though obvious in retrospect, was how quickly and seemingly without thought Carlsen was able to play each move, almost as if he knew what move Gates would make before he made it. It makes perfect sense, but it was fascinating to watch and it made me appreciate how much of a second-nature chess truly is to Carlsen.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com