Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Edmonton Sun)   Bill Gates got checkmated by world Chess champion Magnus Carlsen in just nine, count 'em, nine moves. Adding insult to injury, Gates kept calling the knight "the horsey guy"   (edmontonsun.com) divider line 107
    More: Spiffy  
•       •       •

5296 clicks; posted to Main » on 24 Jan 2014 at 5:19 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



107 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-01-24 06:17:22 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-01-24 06:21:26 PM  

Far Cough: Geez how old is Deep Roy anyway?  I have no idea what those are from but they seem much older than the horrible Wonka remake.


Blake's 7, British sci-fi series from the late seventies.

Deep Roy was also in Flash Gordon, which is 1980, so he's been around a while
 
2014-01-24 06:23:47 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: I've always thought it odd how ability in chess is conflated with intelligence.

I've met some people who were smashing at chess, but more or less retarded at other things (like math).

And I've met the opposite. One of the most intelligent people I've known is rubbish at it, rubbish enough that I can beat him, and I'm pretty mediocre at chess.


Agreed. It's just a game. There are only so many moves and you can memorize most of the high percentage strategies. Professional poker players actually employ more math and computation skills than chess players do. Think about that for a second.
 
2014-01-24 06:24:22 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: I've always thought it odd how ability in chess is conflated with intelligence.

I've met some people who were smashing at chess, but more or less retarded at other things (like math).

And I've met the opposite. One of the most intelligent people I've known is rubbish at it, rubbish enough that I can beat him, and I'm pretty mediocre at chess.


Excellent point.  To be the best of the best in chess you have to either A.  Practice, practice, practice, or B.  be a savant at it, which often comes with drawbacks such as autism.
 
2014-01-24 06:24:43 PM  
Back in high school, I beat the #1 ranked person while we were matched up in the state tournament.  She lost track of how much time she had left.  Teehee.

So basically I'm kinda a big deal.
 
2014-01-24 06:24:48 PM  

sendtodave: I guess this means the chess guy gets all of Gates' money?

No?

Chess guy lost at life.  He picked a pretty useless skill in utero.


The 2013 championship match had $2.5 million on the line.  As the winner, he got 60% of that money, plus he also has an opportunity for sponsorship deals, spokesperson deals, book deals, speaking engagements, etc.

So unless you are arguing "Everyone with less money than Bill Gates is a loser", then he doesn't look like he's doing all that bad.

scottydoesntknow: Bill wasn't thinking about moves. He was panicking because Magnus was slapping that clock a quarter second after Bill made his move.


And most people who don't play fairly serious chess aren't used to having a 2 minute limit.  For most people, chess is a slow game.  This game, Gates had 2  minutes and Carlsen had 30 seconds.  I've never heard anything to make me think that Gates is a serious chess player, so it may well have been the first time he's ever played with a 2:00 minute limit.  Falling apart under those circumstances is common.

I wrote the above before I watched the video.  Gates knows the rules, but he doesn't know much at all about theory.  You can tell that from very, very early in the game.  For instance, he makes his first move before the clock is started, and without punching his clock.  On his third move, he brings his bishop out to d4, which blocks the d pawn without giving the bishop much mobility.

I'm not ragging on him for losing (even quickly) to Carlsen.  I think it's to be expected of most people, and Gates is clearly not a serious chess player.
 
2014-01-24 06:29:20 PM  
Gates-Carlsen[1]

1. e4 Nc6
2. Nf3 d5
3. Bd3 Nf6
4. exd5 Qxd5
5. Nc3 Qh5
6. 0-0 Bg4
7. h3 Ne5
8. hxg4 Nfg4
9. Nxe5?? Qh2#
0-1

[1]The video's title got it wrong; Gates should be named first because he played the white pieces.
 
2014-01-24 06:29:37 PM  
Meh.....

Bill Gates could write a program that could beat the world's best chess players.  In fact, it's so trivial now that nobody bothers.  Chess AIs play against Chess AIs because humans won't win anymore.
 
2014-01-24 06:31:57 PM  

nekom: Agent Smiths Laugh: I've always thought it odd how ability in chess is conflated with intelligence.

I've met some people who were smashing at chess, but more or less retarded at other things (like math).

And I've met the opposite. One of the most intelligent people I've known is rubbish at it, rubbish enough that I can beat him, and I'm pretty mediocre at chess.

Excellent point.  To be the best of the best in chess you have to either A.  Practice, practice, practice, or B.  be a savant at it, which often comes with drawbacks such as autism.



Yeah, I don't think that's a fair assessment.  People who are better at chess see and think about the board differently than the rest of us.  I see that my castley dude can kill that guy or that guy.  Good chess players see the rook controlling lanes on the board.  Or something like that, I dunno, I'm nowhere near "good."

Also, the chess is not a good metric of intelligence can be further generalized to "nothing is a good metric of intelligence."  You name it, there are people who excel at that one specific thing and yet are complete idiots elsewhere.
 
2014-01-24 06:38:46 PM  
Gates let him win.
 
2014-01-24 06:40:18 PM  
lennavan:
I see that my castley dude can kill that guy or that guy.  Good chess players see the rook controlling lanes on the board.

Good chess players (I'm above average, but by no means great) indeed see lanes, but there a few key concepts beyond that that don't occur to the layman.  My father was a chess geek in school and taught me how to play.  What I learned going from n00b to somewhat decent:

1.  Do NOT bee too conservative.  If you just stand back playing defense, you are going to lose, period.  You need to plan and mount an attack right out of the gate.
2.  Overprotection.
3.  Control the center of the board.
4.  When all else fails, push a pawn.  But don't make that your first go to plan.
5.  Overprotection.  Worth mentioning twice.
6.  Don't be afraid to sacrifice a piece for a higher value piece of your opponent's.  If possible, sometimes even try to goat them into taking the exchange, this works best on n00bs.

Better chess players than me probably conceptualize it in entirely different ways.
 
2014-01-24 06:42:36 PM  

lennavan: nekom: Agent Smiths Laugh: I've always thought it odd how ability in chess is conflated with intelligence.

I've met some people who were smashing at chess, but more or less retarded at other things (like math).

And I've met the opposite. One of the most intelligent people I've known is rubbish at it, rubbish enough that I can beat him, and I'm pretty mediocre at chess.

Excellent point.  To be the best of the best in chess you have to either A.  Practice, practice, practice, or B.  be a savant at it, which often comes with drawbacks such as autism.

Yeah, I don't think that's a fair assessment.  People who are better at chess see and think about the board differently than the rest of us.  I see that my castley dude can kill that guy or that guy.  Good chess players see the rook controlling lanes on the board.  Or something like that, I dunno, I'm nowhere near "good."

Also, the chess is not a good metric of intelligence can be further generalized to "nothing is a good metric of intelligence."  You name it, there are people who excel at that one specific thing and yet are complete idiots elsewhere.


Precisely. I am not worth a farthing at chess and yet I have assiduously trained  the muscles of my anal sphincter so that when I defecate the resultant excrement spells "GLAWR"

So I have that going for me.
 
2014-01-24 06:44:58 PM  

gimmeafarkinname: Precisely. I am not worth a farthing at chess and yet I have assiduously trained  the muscles of my anal sphincter so that when I defecate the resultant excrement spells "GLAWR"

So I have that going for me.


Dr. Oz?
 
2014-01-24 06:46:33 PM  

nekom: lennavan:
I see that my castley dude can kill that guy or that guy.  Good chess players see the rook controlling lanes on the board.

Good chess players (I'm above average, but by no means great) indeed see lanes, but there a few key concepts beyond that that don't occur to the layman.  My father was a chess geek in school and taught me how to play.  What I learned going from n00b to somewhat decent:

1.  Do NOT bee too conservative.  If you just stand back playing defense, you are going to lose, period.  You need to plan and mount an attack right out of the gate.
2.  Overprotection.
3.  Control the center of the board.
4.  When all else fails, push a pawn.  But don't make that your first go to plan.
5.  Overprotection.  Worth mentioning twice.
6.  Don't be afraid to sacrifice a piece for a higher value piece of your opponent's.  If possible, sometimes even try to goat them into taking the exchange, this works best on n00bs.

Better chess players than me probably conceptualize it in entirely different ways.


I don't know how many people are afraid of sacrificing a piece for a higher value opponent piece.  The difficult part that I never got over was seeing the board the same way as the clearly better players did.  I would make that trade, I would take their better piece and sacrifice my crappy piece.  I would do that a few times and think I was winning.  I wasn't.  They were trading pieces for position and board control and it was only a few moments away before I started getting my ass kicked.

I don't know how important controlling the center is, I got beat many times because I couldn't do shiat with people controlling the sides.
 
2014-01-24 06:46:55 PM  
I believe Gates's game of choice is Bridge.

Mine is Hearts. But only if there's lots of table talk and razzing.
 
2014-01-24 06:50:51 PM  
People that are really good at chess study it.

They practice tactics over and over and over.  Patterns tend to repeat, and by doing a ton of tactics, they can often, as soon as they glance at a position, recognize a weakness and start looking for how to exploit it, because they've seen similar patterns many times before.  Chess is essentially a game of tactics, so in order to be good at chess, you have to be good at tactics.

As they get pretty good, they start studying openings.  For common openings, they know the main lines and the common mistakes, they don't even have to think about it.  If  you're playing them and you don't know those lines, you're going to make a mistake.  Depending on the mistake, they may already know a way to take advantage of it, or they may just have to start thinking about what to play instead of auto-playing the "book" line.  Either way, that puts them at an advantage.

It's a lot like anything else.  To be the best you can be, you have to work at it, you have to study, and  you have to practice.  If you want to be the best NFL QB, you have to work out, practice passing, and study the playbook.  If you want to be really good at programming computers, you have to study and put a lot of time in on the keyboard.  If you want to be a great guitar player, you have to practice for thousands of hours and study other guitar players for thousands more.  It's easy to be an overnight success, as long as you spend 10 years preparing for it.
 
2014-01-24 06:51:44 PM  
lennavan:
I don't know how many people are afraid of sacrificing a piece for a higher value opponent piece.  The difficult part that I never got over was seeing the board the same way as the clearly better players did.  I would make that trade, I would take their better piece and sacrifice my crappy piece.  I would do that a few times and think I was winning.  I wasn't.  They were trading pieces for position and board control and it was only a few moments away before I started getting my ass kicked.

I don't know how important controlling the center is, I got beat many times because I couldn't do shiat with people controlling the sides.


The numerical value of the piece isn't the only "value" sometimes.  That's where I definitely start to fall apart to better players as well.

/still can't beat the old man
//can barely beat my neighbor half the time who learned in prison, lots of free time in the joint I suppose.
 
2014-01-24 06:54:17 PM  
I play several strategy games and I suck at chess.  Always have.  I lost to a guy who started with just his king, queen and a single rook.  Kicked my ass.  You want to feel good about your game?  Play me.
 
2014-01-24 06:55:41 PM  
I tagged 9. Nxe5 with ?? because even I could see it was the wrong move -- that knight is the only thing stopping Qh2#.  But Gates was pretty close to beaten at that point.  That knight was toast anyway.  Re1 might have given him a chance to last a couple more moves by letting the king escape to f1; anything else and 9. ... Nxf3+ 10. Qxf3 or gxf3 Qh2#.
 
2014-01-24 06:57:36 PM  

tuxq: Bill is lucky, Magnus is good. When it comes to chess, luck has nothing to do with it.


You have a very strange definition of lucky.
 
2014-01-24 06:57:47 PM  

MythDragon: [upload.wikimedia.org image 320x200]

To be fair, Bill was confused that none of the pieces took out an ax and violently chopped up the other pieces.


I often wonder why no one has made an HD version of Battle Chess for modern systems. Hell, I'd even be happy with a tablet version of the game.
 
2014-01-24 07:00:09 PM  
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RHLtx9r2LA

Magnus Carlsen, play League of Legends, you scrub!
 
2014-01-24 07:04:49 PM  

yakmans_dad: I believe Gates's game of choice is Bridge.

Mine is Hearts. But only if there's lots of table talk and razzing.


That's the only way to play. That and making it completely obvious that you and everyone else in the game are counting cards.

It's wonderful to tell someone what card he is about to play without seeing it. And knowing that you're right.
 
2014-01-24 07:09:08 PM  

veryequiped: Yes because Gates couldn't steal a victory, which is the only way he knows how to make a living


Considering the insane amount of good Gates has done with his money, I forgive him for his dickish business practices.
 
2014-01-24 07:11:00 PM  

gimmeafarkinname: lennavan: nekom: Agent Smiths Laugh: I've always thought it odd how ability in chess is conflated with intelligence.

I've met some people who were smashing at chess, but more or less retarded at other things (like math).

And I've met the opposite. One of the most intelligent people I've known is rubbish at it, rubbish enough that I can beat him, and I'm pretty mediocre at chess.

Excellent point.  To be the best of the best in chess you have to either A.  Practice, practice, practice, or B.  be a savant at it, which often comes with drawbacks such as autism.

Yeah, I don't think that's a fair assessment.  People who are better at chess see and think about the board differently than the rest of us.  I see that my castley dude can kill that guy or that guy.  Good chess players see the rook controlling lanes on the board.  Or something like that, I dunno, I'm nowhere near "good."

Also, the chess is not a good metric of intelligence can be further generalized to "nothing is a good metric of intelligence."  You name it, there are people who excel at that one specific thing and yet are complete idiots elsewhere.

Precisely. I am not worth a farthing at chess and yet I have assiduously trained  the muscles of my anal sphincter so that when I defecate the resultant excrement spells "GLAWR"

So I have that going for me.


Had you trained it to spell "GWAR", I'd be mightily impressed.
 
2014-01-24 07:13:24 PM  

flak attack: tuxq: Bill is lucky, Magnus is good. When it comes to chess, luck has nothing to do with it.

You have a very strange definition of lucky.


Bill Gates is a perfect (albeit non-military) example of the phrase: "I would rather have generals who are lucky than who are good."

Luck comes in 2 parts

1) Being in the right place at the right time
2) Recognizing that you're in the right place at the right time and having the skills and prior positioning to exploit the luck.

Bill Gates was lucky (computer guy in the 1980's) AND good (understood exactly how economies of scale and network effects worked, and exactly how they applied to computing + Willing and able to work 100 productive hours/week).
 
2014-01-24 07:14:09 PM  
Chess grandmasters are really, really, really good at chess. They eat, breathe and sleep chess. He knew exactly what he was doing and where he was going to play from the first move. Gates (and 99.999999% of the world's population) had zero chance whatsoever. He had his entire strategy figured out in about a second.

And chess grandmasters do make pretty good money. The grand prize is over a million and you can do appearances, books, etc... and make good money as well. Of course, that is the top 10 players in the world.

My game is hearts and I play it a lot. Most people think it is luck (as I used to as well), but there is actually a ton of skill and technique involved. Well, there is some luck involved (getting passed the queen of spades when you have no spades usually ends badly), but even with a crappy hand, a skilled person can usually minimize the damage.
 
2014-01-24 07:19:03 PM  

machoprogrammer: Chess grandmasters are really, really, really good at chess. They eat, breathe and sleep chess. He knew exactly what he was doing and where he was going to play from the first move. Gates (and 99.999999% of the world's population) had zero chance whatsoever. He had his entire strategy figured out in about a second.

And chess grandmasters do make pretty good money. The grand prize is over a million and you can do appearances, books, etc... and make good money as well. Of course, that is the top 10 players in the world.

My game is hearts and I play it a lot. Most people think it is luck (as I used to as well), but there is actually a ton of skill and technique involved. Well, there is some luck involved (getting passed the queen of spades when you have no spades usually ends badly), but even with a crappy hand, a skilled person can usually minimize the damage.


Well the same can be said of most any game. The talent for comprehending and manipulating systems is one of the things we homo sapiens are rather good at generally speaking.
 
2014-01-24 07:20:02 PM  

Eddie Adams from Torrance: Afterwards, Gates purchased Norway and told Carlsen to GTFO.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

Norways loose cash would purchase Gates 10+ times.
 
2014-01-24 07:20:15 PM  

Gordon Bennett: yakmans_dad: I believe Gates's game of choice is Bridge.

Mine is Hearts. But only if there's lots of table talk and razzing.

That's the only way to play. That and making it completely obvious that you and everyone else in the game are counting cards.

It's wonderful to tell someone what card he is about to play without seeing it. And knowing that you're right.


Haha, yeah. You can also typically figure out who usually has the king or ace by the person who always leads low clubs/diamonds. And the person leading high of non-spades usually has the queen.
 
2014-01-24 07:25:05 PM  
When you are playing against a player of that caliber you aren't just playing him, you're playing against him plus every opponent he's had and all the people he has studied.
Pretty much the only way a casual player would beat Carlsen is if he had a brain aneurysm during the game.
 
2014-01-24 07:25:55 PM  
What I like to see is Bill starts with a full board and Magnus with half a board on the King side!!! That would be interesting to watch!!
 
2014-01-24 07:28:01 PM  

VladTheEmailer: When you are playing against a player of that caliber you aren't just playing him, you're playing against him plus every opponent he's had and all the people he has studied.
Pretty much the only way a casual player would beat Carlsen is if he had a brain aneurysm during the game.


So chess is like an STD then?
 
2014-01-24 07:34:03 PM  

spawn73: Eddie Adams from Torrance: Afterwards, Gates purchased Norway and told Carlsen to GTFO.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Government_Pension_Fund_of_Norway

Norways loose cash would purchase Gates 10+ times.


upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-01-24 07:37:15 PM  

nekom: VladTheEmailer: When you are playing against a player of that caliber you aren't just playing him, you're playing against him plus every opponent he's had and all the people he has studied.
Pretty much the only way a casual player would beat Carlsen is if he had a brain aneurysm during the game.

So chess is like an STD then?


Yes, but without the sex.
 
2014-01-24 07:37:57 PM  

uber humper: I thought Magnus Carlson was the World's Strongest Man.


Might I suggest a new strategy, let the wookie win
 
2014-01-24 07:38:58 PM  
Then gates ask him to compare account balances, and showed him what a real checkmate was.
 
2014-01-24 07:42:31 PM  

TwistedFark: Agent Smiths Laugh: I've always thought it odd how ability in chess is conflated with intelligence.

I've met some people who were smashing at chess, but more or less retarded at other things (like math).

And I've met the opposite. One of the most intelligent people I've known is rubbish at it, rubbish enough that I can beat him, and I'm pretty mediocre at chess.

Agreed. It's just a game. There are only so many moves and you can memorize most of the high percentage strategies. Professional poker players actually employ more math and computation skills than chess players do. Think about that for a second.


Yeah I did.

Now how long do you need to think about the fact that a computer couldn't beat a human till 1997, given that computers are kinda known for being good at memorizing things.
 
2014-01-24 08:04:53 PM  

flak attack: tuxq: Bill is lucky, Magnus is good. When it comes to chess, luck has nothing to do with it.

You have a very strange definition of lucky.


You know another way to pick rich parents?
 
2014-01-24 08:16:37 PM  

spawn73: Now how long do you need to think about the fact that a computer couldn't beat a human till 1997, given that computers are kinda known for being good at memorizing things.


Space limitations.  Serious ones.

Basically, (to the best of my knowledge.  I do not program AI's for a living), a chess AI works like this:

1) Define a heuristic that determines *best* chess position.  Define another heuristic that starts from a given position and determines how LIKELY a given opponent move is.
2) Start from a position.  At every point, make every single move, calculate how *good* the resulting positions is, push forwards from there.
3) At a certain point, run up against physical hardware limits.  Use heuristic to prune tree of all unlikely (because it's bad for them) or bad moves.  Keep moving forwards from there.
4) Stop after simulating N moves.  Pick best move

So let's say we stop at 5 moves.  We know that doing this move is, on average, given our best guess at how likely our opponent is to make certain moves for the next 5 moves, the *best* move.  If it's all going to go horribly wrong at 6 moves, we're farked.

And the heuristics tend to be "Given this list of every previous game ever, what did people do in this position and what happened to them?"

So therefore, your 2 knobs are going to be:

* How good is my heuristic?  How effective is my pruning and how accurate are my predictions?
* Sub-question: How wide/deep is my heuristic?  Since I have limited space, I can either prune like mad and simulate the whole game or I can throw a very wide net that simulates 3 moves out.  (OR: W*H = Constant)
* How much compute power can I throw at the problem?  (Ie: How large can I make constant?)

So the more computing power and the more memory you have, the *deeper* and *broader* you can look, and the *better* your looks are because they're based on more history which helps tune your heuristic.  Combine that with much, much better algorithms (partly because we get better at writing them over time and partly because they can use the new compute power better), and eventually after 30 years of research and Moore's Law, you too can solve the Chess problem.
 
2014-01-24 08:17:17 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: flak attack: tuxq: Bill is lucky, Magnus is good. When it comes to chess, luck has nothing to do with it.

You have a very strange definition of lucky.

You know another way to pick rich parents?



Time machine. Reverse genetic engineering. There are plenty of ways.
 
2014-01-24 08:22:20 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: "the world's second-richest person behind Mexico's Carlos Slim,"

Fine.

I'm probably ignorant for never having heard of him. But the name "Carlos Slim" sounds like something out of an Onion article. Now I have to go google it.



Carlos Slim is the guy who sold cell phones to a country that had theretofore been living under the socialist Mexican telephone system.

Needless to say, there was some, uh, pent-up demand.

And, of course, it helped that the Mexican government gave him its cell phone subsidiary, thereby allowing him to inherit its former monopoly.

Nice work if you can get it.
 
2014-01-24 08:28:18 PM  

spawn73: TwistedFark: Agent Smiths Laugh: I've always thought it odd how ability in chess is conflated with intelligence.

I've met some people who were smashing at chess, but more or less retarded at other things (like math).

And I've met the opposite. One of the most intelligent people I've known is rubbish at it, rubbish enough that I can beat him, and I'm pretty mediocre at chess.

Agreed. It's just a game. There are only so many moves and you can memorize most of the high percentage strategies. Professional poker players actually employ more math and computation skills than chess players do. Think about that for a second.

Yeah I did.

Now how long do you need to think about the fact that a computer couldn't beat a human till 1997, given that computers are kinda known for being good at memorizing things.


It actually was only recently (a few years ago) that a computer beat the best human Scrabble player. There are some things computers suck at, and some things they are good at. In Scrabble, knowing the words is only half the battle. The other half is screwing over your opponent and knowing where to place the tiles and what to play to set up future moves.
 
2014-01-24 08:35:52 PM  
meyerkev:
Basically, (to the best of my knowledge.  I do not program AI's for a living), a chess AI works like this:

1) Define a heuristic that determines *best* chess position.  Define another heuristic that starts from a given position and determines how LIKELY a given opponent move is.
2) Start from a position.  At every point, make every single move, calculate how *good* the resulting positions is, push forwards from there.
3) At a certain point, run up against physical hardware limits.  Use heuristic to prune tree of all unlikely (because it's bad for them) or bad moves.  Keep moving forwards from there.
4) Stop after simulating N moves.  Pick best move


1 and 2 lead up to 3.  At some point, hardware limits will surpass what is needed to use sheer brute force.  At that point, either white or black is going to win every single time because it's predetermined.  We're not there yet, obviously, but that day will come.
 
2014-01-24 09:00:42 PM  

spawn73: Yeah I did.Now how long do you need to think about the fact that a computer couldn't beat a human till 1997, given that computers are kinda known for being good at memorizing things.


Everyone knows how to force a draw at tic-tae, because the number of permutations is limited.  Chess just has a metric shiat-tonne more permutations.  So many more that, at the end of 2 moves each, there are about 9,000 possible board combinations; after 5 moves, that number is 5,000,000.  Even with the massive processing power we have today, it's not practical to extrapolate every possible permutation to end-game (which is the only way to flat-out guarantee a win: never make a move that allows the opponent to eliminate all possible victory conditions).
 
2014-01-24 09:15:09 PM  
Probably used a Vista box to help him...

/Still a very rich man
//Using a Win 7 box
 
2014-01-24 09:50:14 PM  
imagizer.imageshack.us
white to play and mate in 11 moves.


/ultimate chess problem. an opening that guarantees mate.
//unavoidable
///what do i win?
 
2014-01-24 10:06:06 PM  

rlandrum: Yeah...  Poor Bill lost, but just try him at minesweeper.


I'm a whiz at minesweeper I can play for days
Once you see my sweet moves you're gonna stay amazed
my fingers movin' so fast I'll set the place ablaze

/I'll go away now
 
2014-01-24 10:31:11 PM  

machoprogrammer: Chess grandmasters are really, really, really good at chess. They eat, breathe and sleep chess. He knew exactly what he was doing and where he was going to play from the first move. Gates (and 99.999999% of the world's population) had zero chance whatsoever. He had his entire strategy figured out in about a second.


This is completely laughable. Carlsen only had 30 seconds on the clock - which means he had to win in the middle game or it was over. He can't move pieces and hit the clock that fast. He played 1. ... Nc3 because most amateurs would have to think about it. In any real game, he plays Sicilian or Ruy Lopez. But most players are used to those lines. Carlsen's whole strategy was to open up the center and go for a kill shot as soon as possible. There is no way he moved 1. ... Nc3 planning a mate in 9.
 
2014-01-24 10:58:10 PM  

MythDragon: [upload.wikimedia.org image 320x200]

To be fair, Bill was confused that none of the pieces took out an ax and violently chopped up the other pieces.


Loved that game. I would lose just to see what the pieces did.
 
Displayed 50 of 107 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report