Sure, it will be a very lengthy game--because he won't resign after hanging his queen.
Chess.com novice tries to think like a computer but (surprise) still can't beat Magnus
Sort:
Just went to his website, and I think I might throw up. Best (read: worst) quotes from it:
"I pioneered a new way to learn and play chess (and validated that it has potential), hopefully impacting the future of chess in some capacity."
Wow, I never knew that playing 1 game against a novice was validation. And I mean, it's not like every chess engine in the world uses that method or anything.
"Introducing Max Chess: A style of chess play that uses a combination of intuitive moves and mental algorithmic computation. These mental computations are known as Max Calculations."
Because of course no one on Earth has ever tried using calculation and intuition together before in chess. Certainly not Carlsen, right?
"I do predict that, some time in my life, I will play Magnus in a game and win (most likely using a finely tuned mental chess algorithm)."
Some rich chess player needs to make a 100,000 to 1 bet with Max on this. That should get the point across.
Nov 20, 2017
0
#64
It doesn't take a Carlsen. Any decent chess player can reliably crush someone as weak as this guy.
[Incidentally, the reason Carlsen has a percentage of 62.5% is that his average opponent is near 2700! The value of a win in a chess game depends hugely on who the opponent is. The way to tell that Carlsen's chess results are the best in history is his rating. For those who argue with that, extensive analysis has shown that FIDE rating inflation is a myth: it has remained a near fixed indication of quality of play].
Nabium wrote:
Just another reason to hate WSJ if you ask me. They have absolutely no morals, they don't do serious journalism at all.
I am really fascinated by the concept of learning a new thing each month. That sounds like a cool thing to do. But the whole hype they built up, that's a fraud. They said these challenges were "ridiculously difficult" to quote Max himself. Now that's not technically true.
The memorization technique is a technique you can learn to memorize a deck of cards, anyone can do it in a month. But instead of being inspirational and show that anyone could do it, they tried to make it out like this guy was some kind of genius.
Solving a Rubik's cube is hard, first time I tried I had to sit all night before I got it. But then I discovered there's actually a pattern you can learn to "solve it", you just have to read the notations on how to solve it. Anyone who solves it in 20 seconds really have just memorized a pattern, they do not solve it at all. If you sit for 2-4 hours every night repeating the pattern until it goes into your muscle memory you'll be able to solve it in less than 20 seconds too in a month, believe me.
Now I couldn't build a self-driving car, hold a speech about tech in my second language or make a chess algorithm in a month. But then again I don't work with technology for a living. He does. Not saying these things aren't impressive and inspirational, but I am criticizing the way he package it trying to hype it up.
He's just another American with big words. He took a good concept, of learning a new skill and applying dedication in your every day life, and turned it into a gimmickish publicity stunt. When he says these things are ridiculously difficult he's not being frank. And then when he fools WSJ and Magnus Carlsen to be in on it, he's a fraud. Nothing more than a fraud.
Freestyle rapping for 3 minutes especially is nothing special. I could do that easily with a month of preparation. As a matter of fact, I might even be able to do that on the spot.
AmbroseWinters wrote:
Just went to his website, and I think I might throw up. Best (read: worst) quotes from it:
"I pioneered a new way to learn and play chess (and validated that it has potential), hopefully impacting the future of chess in some capacity."
Wow, I never knew that playing 1 game against a novice was validation. And I mean, it's not like every chess engine in the world uses that method or anything.
"Introducing Max Chess: A style of chess play that uses a combination of intuitive moves and mental algorithmic computation. These mental computations are known as Max Calculations."
Because of course no one on Earth has ever tried using calculation and intuition together before in chess. Certainly not Carlsen, right?
"I do predict that, some time in my life, I will play Magnus in a game and win (most likely using a finely tuned mental chess algorithm)."
Some rich chess player needs to make a 100,000 to 1 bet with Max on this. That should get the point across.
Anyone have Rex Sinquefield’s number?
chesster3145 wrote:
Nabium wrote:
Just another reason to hate WSJ if you ask me. They have absolutely no morals, they don't do serious journalism at all.
I am really fascinated by the concept of learning a new thing each month. That sounds like a cool thing to do. But the whole hype they built up, that's a fraud. They said these challenges were "ridiculously difficult" to quote Max himself. Now that's not technically true.
The memorization technique is a technique you can learn to memorize a deck of cards, anyone can do it in a month. But instead of being inspirational and show that anyone could do it, they tried to make it out like this guy was some kind of genius.
Solving a Rubik's cube is hard, first time I tried I had to sit all night before I got it. But then I discovered there's actually a pattern you can learn to "solve it", you just have to read the notations on how to solve it. Anyone who solves it in 20 seconds really have just memorized a pattern, they do not solve it at all. If you sit for 2-4 hours every night repeating the pattern until it goes into your muscle memory you'll be able to solve it in less than 20 seconds too in a month, believe me.
Now I couldn't build a self-driving car, hold a speech about tech in my second language or make a chess algorithm in a month. But then again I don't work with technology for a living. He does. Not saying these things aren't impressive and inspirational, but I am criticizing the way he package it trying to hype it up.
He's just another American with big words. He took a good concept, of learning a new skill and applying dedication in your every day life, and turned it into a gimmickish publicity stunt. When he says these things are ridiculously difficult he's not being frank. And then when he fools WSJ and Magnus Carlsen to be in on it, he's a fraud. Nothing more than a fraud.
Freestyle rapping for 3 minutes especially is nothing special. I could do that easily with a month of preparation. As a matter of fact, I might even be able to do that on the spot.
You should totally make a 3 minute rap video of you dissing Max.
I would except for that I don’t like videos of me going up on the internet and the fact that I’m not really into rap.
I’ll gladly help you or anyone else do it though 
notmtwain wrote:
Here’s the list of challenges:
November: Memorize the order of a deck of cards in less than 2 minutes
December: Draw a realistic self-portrait
January: Solve a Rubik’s Cube in under 20 seconds
February: Land a standing backflip
March: Play a 5-minute improvisational blues guitar solo
April: Hold a 30-minute conversation in Hebrew on the future of tech
May: Build a self-driving car
June: Develop perfect pitch — identify 20 random musical notes in a row
July: Finish a Saturday NYT crossword puzzle in one sitting
August: Complete one continuous set of 40 pull-ups
September: Continuously freestyle rap for 3 minutes
October: Defeat world-champion Magnus Carlsen at a game of chess
He did the first 11 successfully.
from: Monthtomaster.com
Well, his 40 pullups weren't pullups. They were about a 1/4 of a pullup. I'd be blown away if he could even do 10 pullups with proper form. Many of the other challenges are kind of gimmicky and stupid.
He didn't develop perfect pitch either--he developed relative pitch.
All of this hardly makes any sense.
The only real issue is if all of this is a scam and the guy cheats using a computer, tiny cameras/microphones/whatever. Unfortunately chess has a long record of con artists and fraudsters.
If he doesn't, well he will be forgotten soon. Is it possible to be as gullible as he looks in 2017?
Ha ha, if he's cheating, he's not doing well at that, either.
Some of you guys are awfully cynical- calling him a cheat or a fraud with little or no evidence. I think the video of him doing a back flip is very convincing. The blues improv was pretty impressive. His "relative" pitch performance is better than 99% of you could do. His pullups may not be regulation but I doubt most of us could come close. I haven't examined the others.
The chess algorithm development may not have worked. I am sceptical that it would ever work since it would require sustained mental gymnastics during the course of a game but it was still a fascinating attempt.
All in , I think he has a lot to be legitimately proud over.
Nov 21, 2017
0
#75
His play was way too bad for him to be a cheat. Anyone can blunder a piece without needing assistance. He could have done with an earpiece to remind him to resign.
notmtwain wrote:
Some of you guys are awfully cynical- calling him a cheat or a fraud with little or no evidence. I think the video of him doing a back flip is very convincing. The blues improv was pretty impressive. His "relative" pitch performance is better than 99% of you could do. His pullups may not be regulation but I doubt most of us could come close. I haven't examined the others.
The chess algorithm development may not have worked. I am sceptical that it would ever work since it would require sustained mental gymnastics during the course of a game but it was still a fascinating attempt.
All in , I think he has a lot to be legitimately proud over.
True, but he still thinks he can beat Magnus Carlsen. How can we not laugh at him?
And not only does he still think he can beat Carlsen, in fact he just predicted yesterday that he would eventually beat Carlsen.
Nov 21, 2017
0
#78
Hey, arrogance got him a game against Carlsen in the first place. Maybe if he continues his arrogance he can get a rematch.
notmtwain wrote:
Some of you guys are awfully cynical- calling him a cheat or a fraud with little or no evidence. I think the video of him doing a back flip is very convincing. The blues improv was pretty impressive. His "relative" pitch performance is better than 99% of you could do. His pullups may not be regulation but I doubt most of us could come close. I haven't examined the others.
The chess algorithm development may not have worked. I am sceptical that it would ever work since it would require sustained mental gymnastics during the course of a game but it was still a fascinating attempt.
All in , I think he has a lot to be legitimately proud over.
No, that argument doesn't work. Because the reason I called him a fraud was not because the things he did wasn't impressive, I said very openly it was a good idea and it was impressive. But when he labeled them as almost impossible, and build such a hype around it, he was more building up his own ego than trying to inspire others. Do you really not see the difference there? Sure you Americans use so much hyperbolisms you've become insensitive to it. But that shows nothing less than the whole American culture having a fraudulent disposition. When you guys couldn't see how much of a fraud Hillary and Donald was, you sort of lost all respect in my book. This guy is just another American, to me, fits my view of American gullibility perfectly.
The WSJ video they published, with the music, and the interview build up, and the camera shots, it all pretended there was a real match between the two. The guy had a performance of a 900 player. Any one in this chat would have done a better job than him. It's just completely absurd that he is being taken seriously after this, and particularly by us chess players. At least we know what we're talking about here. We ow it to the world to announce that this whole match setup was a fraud, maybe it seems cynical to you but sometimes outing a trickster is the only right thing to do.
AmbroseWinters wrote:
macer75 wrote:
AmbroseWinters wrote:
cap78red wrote:
AmbroseWinters wrote:
I don't think he had much idea of how complicated chess is. It's not something you get pro at in a month, or a year, or even 5 years, much less as an adult. Honestly, I don't know why he thought he could come up with a algorithm to beat Carlsen (does he really think he can literally be an engine?)--in a month, no less. If it were that easy, Carlsen wouldn't be WC.
in my third ever game I beat a 1800 elo player and in my 5 th I drew with a 1816
Good for you, but I'm pretty sure there's a big difference between Magnus and an 1800.
Nah. They're both chess players.
Ah, so obviously there isn't much of a difference between Carlsen and you either.
Nonsense. I'm a far more exciting player than Carlsen.
Aaaaaaand he still thinks he can win. He says at http://bit.ly/2B6GYQa
"I suspect that I’ll be circling back some time in the future, putting in these 500 hours, and taking down Magnus (in what will still likely be a very lengthy game)."