wow!
Andrew Tate vs Piers Morgan - Chess Game Review (94% Accuracy)
Sort:
Dec 25, 2022
0
#23
sonicunleshed wrote:
I found the fact that Piers kept dissing Tate throughout the match when he was clearly making multiple mistakes throughout the game rather amusing.
Yeah he hung his queen while he was trying to diss Tate haha
Top G
So many people are hating on Tates' chess. He never claimed to be a genius player. he simply stated that he was good as a kid but stopped playing later in life to pursue a kickboxing career.He definitely loves chess. I like how he genuinely likes to play with people. I've seen him get really happy when someone brings a chessboard. He's likely a very busy person, but he always gets some games in. I saw chess.com open on one of his screens while working in the morning; there's a video of him declining some girl while playing on his phone during a boxing match, which was pretty funny. I noticed he plays mostly the old Queen's Gambit variation, likely taught by his IM dad.
I don't mind people hating on piers, though.
Looked this up because Fabi brought it up on C-squared. Happy he got arrested although at least he was able to beat Piers's bad play.
free top g
Nov 22, 2024
0
#28
Piers Morgan blundered away his queen without realizing that it was ripe for the taking by Andrew's knight. Piers had an off day I think. Also, it must be noted that this was like a blitz game, and players sometimes make silly mistakes because of time pressure. Piers was doing ok until he lost his queen. After he lost his queen, that left him unfortunately at a major disadvantage. I do think that Piers was his prep school chess champion, as he has mentioned several times. But he just blundered. He castled without checking that his queen was safe. Also, like OP said, moving the pawn in front of the king is risky because you are obviously opening up your defences and leaving yourself more vulnerable. Piers again blundered due to time pressure when it came to him capturing with the king instead of the bishop at the end there. Piers' opening was ok/good though, until he blundered. Also, Piers was moving pieces too prematurely...like he moved his queen way too early, and he lost tempo doing that because it allowed Andrew to develop his pieces quicker. Piers moving his knight up there did not produce anything useful, and he had to move it back again. Piers messed up, partly because of time pressure and partly because of being too aggressive at the wrong moments and partly because of poor decision making. Andrew's trick to make Piers take his knight was a clever tactic, because Andrew used prophylaxis to capture Piers' knight later on. I think Piers' ELO is maybe around 1500, but he had an off day because it was a blitz game. If Piers and Andrew played a chess match that had a much longer time limit...like 30 minutes or something...then I think Piers would play better than how he played that day and it would show Piers' true chess skill.
Tate looks to be around 1200 - 1400 FIDE strength. (He made several inaccurate/inferior moves and even a few blunders.)
Morgan looks to be around 200 FIDE strength (a technical impossibility, yes, since FIDE only goes as low as 1000) ... Morgan appears to know how the pieces move, with very little knowledge beyond that.
Morgan's poor play created the illusion that Tate is a strong player. It's quite easy to look good when your opponent hands you all their pieces.
The computer estimating Tate at 2200 (Candidate Master strength) is ... terribly inaccurate.
True, Piers looked poor here. 94% 'accuracy' (something that noobs often mistake for being something objective and relevant) is not uncommon when a fairly competent player plays against a much weaker one. For the most part it's just playing obvious responses to the opponent's mistakes (picking up hanging pieces and the like). I would expect any intermediate-level player to spot the knight sacrifice and the mate in two at the end. We shouldn't make too much of it, though chess getting some publicity is never a bad thing.