Hacker News Reader

Comment by avenger123 | Hacker News Reader

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.

View on HN

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.

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!

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com