Not logged inRybka Chess Community Forum
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Chess / Carlson 30 secs/game vs. Bill Gates
- - By Isilv (**) Date 2014-01-26 23:24

I'm sorry, but this is really pushing it. Carlson was lucky to win this. 30 seconds for a game is not enough time for anything. Even though Gates had only 2 minutes, which is ridiculously little for someone who is not a good chess player, but especially one who is not used to any speed chess, Carlson should have lost. Any reasonable moves by the opponent of a 30 seconds per game player will cause the player to lose on time.

Even when I was almost a thousand points less, at 1300, I would not have lost to Carlson if he gave me 30 seconds to 2 minutes. What do you think?
Parent - - By Kappatoo (*****) [de] Date 2014-01-26 23:44
That's way off. Even I would beat a 1300 player with 30 seconds vs. 2 minutes easily. 30 seconds are enough to make 50 moves; in fact, a skilled blitz player is able to make many more.
Admittedly, Carlsen was rather slow in making his moves.
Parent - - By Isilv (**) Date 2014-01-27 11:46
30 seconds are barely sufficient to make even only 30 moves, and then even if if one has a hand ALWAYS within a millimeter of the piece one is moving. And then only if one is completely "wired."

Carlsen, however, was in "relaxed" mode. And Carlsen's rate of moving was barely sufficient for getting in all moves for 1 minute per game, let alone 30 seconds. If Gates had not almost intentionally blundered by allowing a mate, Carlsen was 99% surely going to lose on time. There was even a move where he took a second or two for the move.

What was Carlsen thinking in agreeing to this format? How could someone on the top of the chess world, with presumably savvy media handlers, not realize that for the normal public, which consists of non-chess players and chess players not at all familiar with speed chess, even making all his moves in 2 minutes is enough of a "Wow" factor? He should have realized that any Gates "thinking" time was irrelevant, and given him 3 minutes, and given himself 90 seconds, which he could have completely snoozed through. Or spotted him a piece, or a rook. and done 2 minutes per game. I think Carlsen is capable of winning that against a rank beginner.

This does not make any sense to me.
Parent - By Kappatoo (*****) [de] Date 2014-01-27 15:34

> 30 seconds are barely sufficient to make even only 30 moves

This is just false. I recommend watching a couple of games of some skilled bullet player.
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2014-01-27 15:42
Look at it this way:

You have an amateur playing against a chess computer on absolute top of the line hardware. The computer must take at least 750 msec to move. This allows for 40 moves. With an elo difference of perhaps 2000+, the amateur player has a hard time avoiding a knockout.

Now Carlsen is not as strong as this computer, but he is quite strong, perhaps still in the area of +2000 elo. Also keep in mind that he can think on his opponent's time.

Not all of his moves will be exactly 0.75 sec, some will be 2 seconds, others will be less than 1 (and perhaps less than 0.75) if they're on the side of the board near the clock.

Also, this is something he has experience with. Here's another example:

I saw him on at least one other television show doing a 30 second exhibition, so I get the impression that he does these all the time.

Really I'm not sure what your objection is, are you afraid he's going to lose?
Parent - By Kreuzfahrtschiff (***) [de] Date 2014-01-29 17:50
indeed 30 sec is easy, against 2400+ 60 sec is good enough
Parent - By Labyrinth (*****) [us] Date 2014-01-27 00:50
You've heard of bullet right? Most of the top young players do just fine in bullet (1-minute).

It's not at all inconceivable that Carlsen would defeat an amateur at 30 seconds. In fact he does those kind of exhibitions a lot.
Up Topic The Rybka Lounge / Chess / Carlson 30 secs/game vs. Bill Gates

Powered by mwForum 2.27.4 © 1999-2012 Markus Wichitill