Hacker News Reader

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

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.

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.

> 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.

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.

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).

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?