Slashdot Mirror


23-Year-Old Chess Grandmaster Whips Bill Gates In 71 Seconds

MojoKid writes "There's no disputing that Bill Gates is blessed with a brilliant mind. Sure, he dropped out of Harvard College, but he got accepted into the elite institution of higher learning in the first place. Leading into his college career, Gates scored 1,590 out of 1,600 on the SAT. The rest is history — he went on to co-found Microsoft, built a net worth that's in the billions ($76.8 billion at last count), and now spends his time on his philanthropic efforts. Regardless, it took 23-year-old Magnus Carlsen, a "grandmaster" Chess player since the age of 13 and new world Chess champion, just 71 seconds to defeat Gates in a friendly game of Chess on a Norwegian television show. It takes longer to heat up a cup of water in the microwave."

449 comments

  1. microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Your microwave sucks

    1. Re:microwave by raynet · · Score: 1

      The microwave in the example does suck, even the very first microwave oven we got in the 80s did boil a glass of water in 60 seconds.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    2. Re:microwave by lucm · · Score: 1

      The microwave in the example does suck, even the very first microwave oven we got in the 80s did boil a glass of water in 60 seconds.

      Maybe it's not the microwave, maybe the guy does not keep his dishes clean. See http://www.snopes.com/science/...

      --
      lucm, indeed.
    3. Re:microwave by azzy · · Score: 4, Informative

      How big is the cup? How much water in the cup? These are the things that matter!

    4. Re:microwave by smittyoneeach · · Score: 2

      No, that would make it a vacuum cleaner.

      --
      Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
    5. Re:microwave by mcneely.mike · · Score: 0

      And are girls involved? 2 girls? :[

      --
      soylentnews.org Go there to enjoy the people!
    6. Re:microwave by phmadore · · Score: 1

      The major difference between my current model and the one we had growing up is price and brand. That one was a GE, weighed about the same, lasted roughly 19 years if I'm not mistaken (my mom hates buying new things), and cost something like $200 80s money. This one I got as an adult at Big Lots for $40 2013 money, and it is a Westinghouse. It has roughly the same functionality. So I'm with you, there is no reason to have a shitty microwave.
      It's either early or I'm really annoying.

    7. Re:microwave by phmadore · · Score: 1

      Maybe the real problem is his dishwasher, be they human or bot!

    8. Re:microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

      Getting accepted into Harvard does not mean you have a brilliant mind; any rote memorization genius could pass the tests. Hell, even graduating doesn't mean you're not an idiot.

    9. Re: microwave by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Since when did those fancy features work anyways? Do most advanced microwaves include feedback logic (heat, resistive, auditory), or is it all timing based on a lookup table of predefined calculation of the selections you choose? Because if it's the later (which I believe they are), they don't work with a damn. The food doesn't defrost well, the chicken still turns to rubber, and the popcorn button either under pops the bag or burns the hell out of it. No, a cheap unit with a timer knob does the job for the most basic of needs for me. No false expectations to get angry over.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    10. Re:microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well how about him being super, mega rich? That requires brains.

      It's like old Louis Jordan used to say, If you're so smart, how come you ain't rich?

    11. Re:microwave by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Mine is almost that old and takes over 90 seconds to actually boil water. How warm is microwave-warmed water? Also, if I full a soup mug with water, it would take over 3 minutes to boil.

      So we don't know how much water there is, or how warm "heated" is. As a chess player I have to say, this tactic is a total fail. There is no objective way to evaluate if the water is more or less warm than they claim.

      It is like one of those chess compositions with no board annotations, where it is possible for the pieces to be going either direction.

    12. Re:microwave by raynet · · Score: 2

      Warming the water would only take seconds, boiling is of course measured with standard coffee cup, thus means 1.25 deciliters of water at sea level :)

      --
      - Raynet --> .
    13. Re:microwave by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      it's not the UK, india, or Japan. there is no "test" to memorize for.

    14. Re:microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      250 ml. Do cups vary in size where you are?

    15. Re:microwave by Marxist+Hacker+42 · · Score: 0

      If being rich required brains, the rest of the world would be MUCH better off. Being rich just requires the ability to be sociopathic.

      --
      SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
    16. Re: microwave by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      The popcorn button on mine (a $100 Panasonic) does something clever: it runs at full power for about a minute (the actual timing is determined by the moisture sensor) and then downshifts to 80%. Doing the final part of the popping at lower power makes it easier to stop the microwave when popping is done and thus avoid burning the popcorn. Though I'm not sure why nobody has designed a microwave that LISTENS to the popcorn...

      It's also an inverter microwave, which means that reducing power actually reduces the power output rather than cycling on and off every few seconds. I find that more effective for thawing, and for sensitive warming tasks such as softening sticks of butter.

      Finally, I find the touchpad controls convenient. It also displays the time and doubles as a kitchen timer when I'm cooking things on the stove. So to me it's worth the extra money over a basic model with a knob, if anybody actually still makes those.

      As for the boiling a glass of water question, the time is going to be highly variable depending on the size of the glass. The kind of glass or cup you use also matters; if you use a typical coffee mug it will take a bit longer because the mug will absorb significant amounts of heat. But it won't shatter, whereas a typical drinking glass (which is not intended for hot liquids) might. For whatever reason I've never taken to boiling water in the microwave; I do mine in the whistling kettle.

    17. Re:microwave by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If you're that loose about how warm it has to get, the first photon that is absorbed it has already been warmed.

    18. Re:microwave by raynet · · Score: 1

      I wanted to define the target as boiling but the article only speaks about warming the water with the microwave oven, which would happen when random photon emitted by the oven (most likely the outer surface of the oven) is absorbed by the cup.

      --
      - Raynet --> .
  2. Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny
    ... Regardless, it took 23-year-old Magnus Carlsen, a "grandmaster" Chess player since the age of 13 and new world Chess champion, just 71 seconds to defeat Gates in a friendly game of Chess on a Norwegian television show. It takes longer to heat up a cup of water in the microwave."

    And about as long as it takes Windows to blue-screen...

    1. Re:Runtime... by Rhinobird · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh, come on. That is such an old cliche. I mean, it's taken them 30 years, but Windows, now, doesn't crash for at LEAST 2 minutes...the time it takes to boot.

      --
      If Mr. Edison had thought smarter he wouldn't sweat as much. --Nikola Tesla
    2. Re:Runtime... by Opportunist · · Score: 5, Funny

      Well, you have to hand it to MS, they are consistent. No matter how fast your machine may get, they will adjust their OS to take the same time to boot up...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Runtime... by Megol · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'm realize you were trying to be funny (not that you were) but just for the record: my computer boots into Windows 8 to the desktop in 8 seconds - including the time to log in. It takes longer to boot into Linux last I tried.

    4. Re:Runtime... by michelcolman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And how long does it take before you can actually use it? Maybe the desktop appears after 8 seconds, but the system is still configuring itself and, well, basically finishing the booting process, the antivirus system is still setting itself up, etcetera. Meanwhile you're clicking on icons and nothing happens, or at the very least it's extremely sluggish. At least that's what earlier versions of Windows were like, I haven't actually had the... err... pleasure to try Windows 8, so this is a genuine question.

    5. Re:Runtime... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      Windows 8 is pretty good in this regard. They have moved more services to start only on demand so that they don't take up time on login.

    6. Re:Runtime... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Indeed. The last blue screen I got was when I switched my bios to ACPI -- that was quickly resolved and totally my fault. Outside of that, I haven't seen a blue screen since 9x.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    7. Re:Runtime... by nschubach · · Score: 1

      You must not game? I run windows 7 64-bit on my gaming machine and I can recall at least 4 blue screens. None of my hardware diagnostics indicate any problems and it's rare enough for me not to care all that much, but it does still happen.

      --
      Every time I start to have faith in humanity, I ruin it by driving to work between 7 and 8 am.
    8. Re:Runtime... by smash · · Score: 0

      Yes and no. If you use network drives, they aren't loaded for about 5 MINUTES after the desktop becomes available. No i am not joking with that time. It delays reconnection for some fucking idiotic reason, probably related to winning boot to desktop benchmarks.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    9. Re: Runtime... by um...+Lucas · · Score: 1

      Whenever I pla someone for the first time, I always try the 4 move opening. If they catch me, I apologize and just say " sorry, had to try"

    10. Re:Runtime... by Megol · · Score: 2
      Well after 7 seconds (when bypassing the login screen) any program starts as fast as it does normally - I'd consider that the steady state and not boot state. 12 seconds for booting+starting Chrome manually (shows this thread). Setting Chrome as a start up item for some reason requires 18 seconds for doing the same.

      However I can start some other programs at 9 seconds - with ~1 second for program launch plus ~1 second for me to manually move the mouse pointer and double-click the icon.

    11. Re:Runtime... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm realize you were trying to be funny (not that you were) but just for the record: my computer boots into Windows 8 to the desktop in 8 seconds - including the time to log in. It takes longer to boot into Linux last I tried.

      Windows 8 speeds up boot time by using Hybrid boot / Fast Boot. Basically when you go to shutdown, the computer will reboot, then basically at the login prompt hibrenate to disk. So 8 seconds probably isn't the time for a true cold start.

      http://www.howtogeek.com/12902...

      http://www.eightforums.com/tut...

      Because I use legacy boot menu on my Windows 8 machine, it does not use hybrid boot. The boot time for Win8 is about the same as Win7 was, which is about what WinXP was, about 30 seconds. The problems that extend boot times isn't Microsoft, but third party vendors that insist everything must be running all the time, and not even small background daemons. Workplace IT departments seem particularly skilled at loading down the PCs with so much shit that a well specced Core i5 can take 5 minutes to become usable. The other users that suffer from this is home users that don't know how to use a computer and load as much shit as the popups on the internet tell them to.

    12. Re:Runtime... by haruchai · · Score: 1

      I've seen blue screens from almost every version of Windows incl several new-ish machines running Windows 7 & 1 Server 2008 machine. It's much, much, much better than the bad old days but it still happens.
      And this is on a variety of boxes - some custom-built towers, some brand-name laptops, some server-class gear (mostly Dell PowerEdge & HP Proliant)

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    13. Re:Runtime... by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I see, thanks for letting me know. That sounds like a major quality assurance problem on Microsoft's end.

    14. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is complete BS. Network is instantly available, even before you log on (Ethernet).

    15. Re: Runtime... by DigiShaman · · Score: 2

      I'm a Windows server administrator that monitors and performs proactive maintenance on both Dell and HP servers. In all my eight years at my current job, I've only had one out of 60+ throw a BSOD. And that was because of a known bug in a USB 3 card driver.

      If your server is throwing a BSOD, check the hardware first.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    16. Re: Runtime... by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Even a Core i3 will hold its own for most users. Through due to the AV/ Malware arms-race, it's best to spec out an i5 for future anticipation (eats more CPU cycles over time). But the biggest gain is to install 8GB of RAM and a hybrid disk.

      An i5, 8GB, and hybrid drive is the sweet spot I recommend for my clients. Specifically OptiPlex 7010 or 9020 units that support dual-monitors.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    17. Re:Runtime... by EuclideanSilence · · Score: 1

      My Commadore 64 booted instantly. Flip the switch and it was ready for commands. If you plugged a game cartidge into the back of the keyboard, it would boot to the program. Instantly.

      Eight seconds is an eternity when your switches are flipping in nanoseconds.

    18. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's due to shitty drivers and poorly written games.

    19. Re:Runtime... by pspahn · · Score: 1

      I game fairly regularly. I also run Win 7 64, so I'm guessing your problem is not Windows.

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    20. Re:Runtime... by cbhacking · · Score: 1

      NVidia drivers? Those are the only things that have caused random-bluescreen-while-gaming for me in the last seven years, from Vista through Win8 (well, my Win8 machines don't use NV drivers, but I've had no problems on AMD or Intel yet, not that I use the tablet for much gaming). The sad thing is, due tot he way WDDM works, the driver has to crash *really* badly to actually cause a bluescreen - usually it just makes the screen go black for a second, then come back as the user-mode portion of the driver gets restarted. I lost count of the number of times that happened - multiple times per day, often, though - back in 2007, but only on my NVidia machine, and a coupel times the driver crashed again while (or immediately after) "recovery" at which point you will get a bluescreen. They eventually released a driver update that reduced it to an every-other-year kind of issue, but still...

      --
      There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
    21. Re:Runtime... by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, even my Timex/Sinclair 2000 booted faster than that.

    22. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must not have a stable system?

      Only bluescreens I have got during gaming were overclock related. Also my own fault.

    23. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a workplace IT environment, I resent that.

      We try to slim down the Windows images as much as we can.

    24. Re:Runtime... by locopuyo · · Score: 2

      I run Windows 8.1 on an SSD and I fully boot to a blue screen in under 10 seconds.

    25. Re:Runtime... by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      But the Commodore 64 disk drive... man, that thing was epic slow.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    26. Re:Runtime... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It takes my monitors longer to realize that my OS is back up after rebooting than it actually takes to reboot, ie post and Win 8.1 boot is done before the monitor goes from no signal to my login.

    27. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the Commodore 64 disk drive... man, that thing was epic slow.

      My mind is trying to imagine how someone can be both old enough to remember how slow the C=64 drive was, and be young enough to use the term "epic" as their meaningless intensifier of choice.

    28. Re:Runtime... by smash · · Score: 1

      Network is. Mapped drives do not get re-mapped until well after log in - they are OFF LINE.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    29. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different poster here. I game. Windows 7 and Windows 8 have not given me a single blue screen the past 4 years combined. Must be your rig.

    30. Re:Runtime... by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      And if you inserted a cassette with Bubble Bobble, you only had to press play and wait about 15 minutes for it to load.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    31. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That does not make it faster ... it displaces the time to the shutdown ... so you miss your plane ...

    32. Re:Runtime... by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      I suspect this is the new Windows "boot" where it actually resumes from hibernation after you "shut down" the previous session. They just don't bother to tell the user, to make it seem like it boots really fast.

      When I shut down my computer, I want it to **shut down**, not lie to me about it.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    33. Re:Runtime... by Stratus311 · · Score: 1

      I think you have other issues. I have a mix of 8 and 8.1 clients here at work and not one exhibits this behavior.

    34. Re:Runtime... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Drivers I can see. But if user space software can kick a system out of its orbit, something is wrong with the OS.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    35. Re:Runtime... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      The drive itself wasn't that bad. Basically what you had there was another C64 (that's also why those drives were so insanely expensive). The idea to use a very, very slow serial connection to transfer the data to the computer, though...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    36. Re:Runtime... by Shirley+Marquez · · Score: 1

      Until people switched to SSDs, boot time was mostly constrained by the seek time of hard disk drives. That has not improved substantially in the past 15 years. (It DID improve a lot in the preceding 15 year period, which were the first half of the PC and Mac era.) Data transfer rate has, which means that a large file takes less time to read or write, but the speed of skipping around to a bunch of small files like device drivers and services hasn't changed much.

      Windows could improve boot time considerably (especially on systems that lack an SSD) by automatically building a boot pack for your configuration - gather up all your drivers and startup services and store them in a special file that would load at boot. But this technique would cause problems if the system did not reliably detect changes, or if the package of things to load changed often enough that you were spending too much time rebuilding it.

      Microsoft made some improvements to startup time in Windows 7 and additional improvements in Windows 8. But most of that comes from deferring startup of less-essential services until after the system first becomes available for use. That's why you see continuing hard disk activity for a little while after the desktop is ready.

    37. Re:Runtime... by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Windows 7 with an SSD, I can go from pushing the power button to open and usable Firefox window in about 17 seconds... on a 4 year old laptop. SSDs make a huge difference in boot times, it's probably the single biggest performance improvement you can make on a PC.

    38. Re:Runtime... by LinuxIsGarbage · · Score: 1

      That does not make it faster ... it displaces the time to the shutdown ... so you miss your plane ...

      Yup, all it does is displace the time to shutdown. However it doesn't add that much extra time.

      The real time killer that makes you miss your plane:
      "Shit, I'm late for my plane, and my notebook battery doesn't work"
      *start-shutdown-shutdown*
      "Installing update 1 of 43. Do not shut off your computer"

    39. Re:Runtime... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It turns out the basic system architecture was fine, too. After all, Atari also used intelligent floppy disk drives with a serial link on their competing Atari 8-bit series, and performance was good enough there.

      The problem was in the implementation details. Commodore designed both the 1541 and C64 with a hardware serial chip which turned out to be buggy. They did not want to revise the 1541 for some reason, and fell back to using bit-banged serial communications as a workaround.

      Bit-banging means that the CPU handles serialization and deserialization in software instead of letting a hardware controller do it on the CPU's behalf. You can almost never push super high data rates with bit banging, but the required rates in this case (~10000 to 20000 bps) should have been within reach for the CPUs in question. However, Commodore wrote bit banging code which fell far short of realizing the throughput the hardware was capable of, and the rest is history.

      (In fairness, C='s engineers might well have been faced with a difficult optimization problem without enough time to crack it before shipping. It's easy enough to write fast bit-banging code, but the 1541's CPU couldn't be dedicated to serial comms full time. It also had to manage reading data from the floppy. On top of that, it had very limited amounts of RAM. Probably not enough to pull off tricks like buffering up a whole track at a time, which would let it alternate between reading a track and transmitting data. It's easy to imagine a get-it-out-the-door effort resulting in code which needed one revolution of the disk to read one sector...)

      By now you have probably guessed how those "fast loaders" worked -- they just uploaded a replacement program to the 1541 and combined it with replacement software running on the C64 side to achieve higher data rates.

    40. Re: Runtime... by flabordec · · Score: 1

      I have had the same thing happen three or four times. Every time it turned out to be nVidia's graphics driver (to be fair, it hasn't crashed since the last update a couple of months ago).

      --
      "I see undead people" Warcraft III - Necromancer
  3. Bill by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    He should have brought a Chess computer.

    1. Re:Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      He should have brought a Chess computer.

      But i bet Bill would have won at minesweeper and solitaire.

    2. Re:Bill by marcello_dl · · Score: 3, Funny

      > He should have brought a Chess computer.

      Well, he was confident he could bribe the opponent's king into making a burning platform speech saying the only way out is to scrap all strategies and ask Gates directions, but the pawns did not buy it.

      --
      ---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
    3. Re:Bill by phmadore · · Score: 5, Funny

      And he SURE PLAYS SOME MEAN PINBALL.

      (vote up if you get this reference)

    4. Re: Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, in the interview he stated That he was good at "go"

    5. Re:Bill by haruchai · · Score: 3

      Are you saying he's deaf, dumb & blind? That's harsh.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    6. Re:Bill by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      And maneuvers a small hovercraft.

    7. Re:Bill by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      At least he knows how to play minesweeper. (A reddit thread recently revealed that a lot of people had been playing it by randomly clicking, and either ignored the numbers, or thought they were points).

    8. Re:Bill by Talderas · · Score: 1

      This can't possibly be true.

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  4. Big deal. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

    He lost to someone who spent much of their life practicing the game. That doesn't really mean anything. To be a chess grandmaster requires a great natural aptitude - but it also requires devotion to practice and study within that very narrow field.

    1. Re:Big deal. by nukenerd · · Score: 1

      He lost to someone who spent much of their life practicing the game. That doesn't really mean anything.

      No-one (except perhaps his closest worshippers) would have expected Gates to win. But 71 seconds ?? Surely most people who had played chess before could have held out that long.

    2. Re:Big deal. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      Kind of agree. Gates had 2mn to think, but he chose to play quick - probably not seeing what was coming. But anyone who played against a strong chess software, like Fritz, knows how quickly this thing takes you down. And Carlsen is better than Fritz..

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    3. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      No, he's not. Give Fritz a powerful enough CPU and 8GB of RAM to hold opening/endgame tables, and it could beat any human player. The days where humans could beat computers at chess are long gone. Let alone the super-engines like Rybka or Houdini, the ones that GMs use (on extreme hardware) to prepare for matches. The Elo rating of engines has long since passed the 3260, while even the best (Kasparov at his peak) never breached 2860; a 400 Elo rating difference is more or less insurmountable (that rating difference means that statistically, you'll eke out a draw every hundred games, and lose the other ninety-nine).

      Don't get me wrong, I think Carlsen will become the greatest human to ever play the game, but chess engines have become (conservatively) over a million times more powerful since the landmark victory of Deep Blue against Kasparov, if you combine hardware and software advances. What then shocked the world is nowadays commonplace.

    4. Re:Big deal. by mvar · · Score: 0

      Oh those Slashdot titles never cease to amaze me. He got his ass whipped for good that multibillionaire now, didn't he? I'm pretty sure after losing that match Gates was very depressed during the whole flight in his multimillion dollar jet, while heading for this multimillion dollar mansion -_-

    5. Re:Big deal. by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It was a Rapid game where Carlsen only had half the time to make his moves than Gates had, but neither had very much time at all. Gates was under no illusions as to his chances either - he considered the result to be a forgone conclusion.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    6. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He lost to someone who spent much of their life practicing the game. That doesn't really mean anything.

      No-one (except perhaps his closest worshippers) would have expected Gates to win. But 71 seconds ?? Surely most people who had played chess before could have held out that long.

      You chastise Bill for playing quickly...when in reality, he knew his fate before he even touched a single chess piece.

      Why is it that you assume speed was a sign of unintelligent game play in his part? What exactly would have been the point of sitting there thinking about it?

      It's like standing there on the court taking your time serving a tennis ball to Roger Federer. Speed was realistically the most effective way to him to play this game, for the outcome was already known.

    7. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      2mn? wtf is this unit? microneurons?

    8. Re:Big deal. by rollingcalf · · Score: 1

      Of course Gates would be expected to lose, and it would be a shocker if he didn't lose.

      But he lost in only 9 moves. He should have been able to last longer than that.

      --
      ---------
      There is inferior bacteria on the interior of your posterior.
    9. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      No, he's not. Give Fritz a powerful enough CPU and 8GB of RAM to hold opening/endgame tables, and it could beat any human player. The days where humans could beat computers at chess are long gone. Let alone the super-engines like Rybka or Houdini, the ones that GMs use (on extreme hardware) to prepare for matches. The Elo rating of engines has long since passed the 3260, while even the best (Kasparov at his peak) never breached 2860; a 400 Elo rating difference is more or less insurmountable (that rating difference means that statistically, you'll eke out a draw every hundred games, and lose the other ninety-nine).

      Don't get me wrong, I think Carlsen will become the greatest human to ever play the game, but chess engines have become (conservatively) over a million times more powerful since the landmark victory of Deep Blue against Kasparov, if you combine hardware and software advances. What then shocked the world is nowadays commonplace.

      Chess engines are dumb. Without opening books and endgame tables they're worth jack shit.
      Now the day someone comes up with a chess engines that doesn't need opening books and endgame tables to beat a human chess player that is a day worth remembering.

    10. Re:Big deal. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Those chess grandmasters study the same books and tables extensively.

    11. Re:Big deal. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      At least in the old Microsoft days I remember Gates having a personality of getting really angry if he was defeated.

    12. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sure. Then again, dear bill isn't really such a hoot in all fields either. He got lucky and knows how to be ruthless in business. He ended up rich at the cost of quite a few promising enterprises and technologies left burning in the wake of his company. That is also a pretty narrow field, if with a much larger impact on society.

      This is easy to forget, but also easy to see if you want to. Just try and read his books, looking for grand insights. I dare you.

    13. Re:Big deal. by alexandre.oberlin · · Score: 2

      Those chess grandmasters study the same books and tables extensively.

      Not while playing.

    14. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      m = milli. Slashdot cannot display the SI symbol for "micro".

    15. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      millinanos, stupid.

    16. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Of course Gates would be expected to lose, and it would be a shocker if he didn't lose.

      But he lost in only 9 moves. He should have been able to last longer than that.

      And how do you know that Bill all along...wasn't trying to establish a new world record?

      Does he not know hold the record for fastest loss to a grandmaster?

      In a sense, a brilliant move. He knew he couldn't "win" any other way.

    17. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      But he lost in only 9 moves. He should have been able to last longer than that.

      This remind me of the first time I had sex.

    18. Re:Big deal. by Kuroji · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I guess memory is a foreign concept to you. Tell me, what do you think studying does, exactly?

    19. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, they forget all those moves they studied as soon as they put down the book?

    20. Re:Big deal. by alexandre.oberlin · · Score: 1

      Of course I don't have a virtually unlimited memory like the chess computer programs (and apparently you) may have.

    21. Re: Big deal. by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

      You mean, 'u'? Seems that is the accepted convention for limited typesets.

      --
      while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    22. Re:Big deal. by smash · · Score: 1

      More to the point he lost to a 23 year old guy who was a grand master at 13. By the time Gates was ~25 (i.e., similar age) he had stitched up IBM in probably the biggest ever deal in the history of software (for DOS). Meh.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    23. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      neither do most chess computers.

    24. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Apparently you have a reading comprehension problem. He never said he can't remember what he already studied, merely that he cannot actively study while playing.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    25. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly. Which is part of why a computer will outperform a human in this exercise. Of course if you cripple the machine to not have any of its advantages, while presumably leaving it with its disadvantages then there wouldn't be much point.

      You might as well object to a human who does win by saying 'well, he's got millions of years of evolution behind him and an organic brain, I'll be impressed when he can win without them'.

    26. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      From the article:

      "The 58-year-old Microsoft genius had 2 minutes to decide each move versus just 30 seconds for Carlsen ..."

      Yes. 30 Seconds is indeed half of two minutes. Not really. Gates had more time by a factor of 4, not 2.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    27. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah it was a waste of Bill Gates' time. The last I checked his time was worth a lot. So the less time he spends losing chess to someone who will definitely beat him (without being too blatant about it- that would be rude) the more efficient he is being.

      That said I wonder if he would beat Carlsen in a test of VB skills ;).

    28. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      " By the time Gates was ~25 (i.e., similar age) he had stitched up IBM in probably the biggest ever deal in the history of software (for DOS) ..."

      Evidently you don't know very much about software, or the history of Microsoft. There is no 1 deal that explains Microsoft, but even if there was, there were already plenty of much bigger deals made in the software industry prior to that. It was hundreds of back room double dealings that caused Microsoft to become the behemoth that it is, and has absolutely nothing to do with Gates being any kind of "software genius." The truth is he can't write decent software and never could, is no visionary, and merely saw the potential of applying the Mafia business model to a software company.

      ""There's no disputing that Bill Gates is blessed with a brilliant mind."

      This is the most horrendous line in the article if for no other reason than it is just plain wrong. Gates has an Evil mind; that doesn't make it "brilliant".

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    29. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No. I have it on reliable authority (Melinda Gates) that 9 moves is his upper limit.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    30. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      So your short term memory is still in tact then, eh?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    31. Re:Big deal. by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Speed chess is like that. Playing it against someone with the "feel" that a grandmaster has would make lasting 9 moves be an achievement...

    32. Re:Big deal. by phmadore · · Score: 1

      Right. Might have been better to have had a small child do this.

    33. Re:Big deal. by buddyglass · · Score: 2

      To add to this, Carlsen's peak rating (per wiki) is 2872. Fritz 11 running on a Core 2 Quad Core earned a rating of 3085 (per the Swedish Chess Computer Association's rankings). According to some sites I found that analyze results based on ELO ratings, Fritz would have a 77% chance of beating Carlsen in a given game.

      The wrench in this narrative is that Carlsen + Fritz would probably beat Fritz by itself. So there's still some "value add" for a computer player from having a human "on your team".

    34. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Why is it that you assume speed was a sign of unintelligent game play in his part? What exactly would have been the point of sitting there thinking about it?

      I would guess, just based on logic and my own anecdotal experience, that you're less likely to make blunders if you take your time. And of course, you can consider more moves if you aren't in a hurry.

      Bill Gates is a very self-disciplined guy, but not known for being patient.

    35. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even if you think he's pure evil, and has no idea how software works, how do you suppose that he isn't unusually intelligent? Business acumen takes intelligence. There's worse people than Bill Gates out there, and none of them made those billions of dollars defining a new business model. Luck is surely part of it too (eg. the luck to have rich parents), but come on. Not liking what Bill Gates did doesn't make him stupid.

      This said, chess playing ability is a measure of intelligence, and it's probably better than "what's your favourite TV show", but it's not a great one. Kind of like being the richest man in the world is a measure of intelligence, but not a great one.

    36. Re:Big deal. by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      You can lose in 2 rounds, which I believe is the theoretical minimum (short of a forfeit or renege anyway). I'm sure somebody has done that.

    37. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > 2mn? wtf is this unit? microneurons?

      Millinewtons. Not to be confused with the Newton (a unit of force), the "new ton" is better than the old ton by a factor of 1.32326.

    38. Re:Big deal. by SavvyPlayer · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Remember the opportunity cost for BG to stop and pick up a $100 bill on the sidewalk (http://www.nytimes.com/2002/02/03/us/forum-in-new-york-diary-is-it-worth-bending-to-pick-up-just-100.html). This entire appearance on this show was likely a money-losing endeavor. Dragging it out would not only have cost more in terms of dollars but likely prestige if the munificent captain-of-industry began to show any sort of optimism or frustration in the fated match.

    39. Re:Big deal. by Riceballsan · · Score: 2

      right, but that's the thing. Humans do have to commit some extent of the tables etc... into their memories, How much space humans can devote to it, of course varies human to human, but saying a human can use them, and a computer can't would be hypocritical. Unless we can quantify exactly how many tables the grandmaster has memorized, and forced the computer to use that exact quantity.

    40. Re:Big deal. by Chemisor · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I didn't even know Bill Gates knew how to play chess. That is not a skill required to either pass the SATs or to run a company.

    41. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Evidently you don't know very much about software, or the history of Microsoft. There is no 1 deal that explains Microsoft

      Oh, come on! If Microsoft's history shows us anything, it's that the DOS deal with IBM made the company. They were doing all right selling languages, but their only other product was Xenix, and that was hardly going to take over the world.

      The "evil genius" moment was when Bill negotiated a the rights for DOS. He couldn't have known that the PC clone market would explode the way it did, but he knew that he HAD to be able to sell DOS to other computer manufacturers. As a result, they sold millions of copies and had the resources to do Word, Excel, and all the other stuff that made them a juggernaut. Don't forget, when Word first came out it was considered inferior to other word processors on the market. But MS had the wherewithal to improve it and leverage it, thanks largely to the DOS income.

      If IBM had insisted on sole rights to sell MS-DOS (aka PC-DOS), Microsoft would likely gone on to help them develop OS/2 and then been shown the door.

    42. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      "Oh, come on! If Microsoft's history shows us anything, it's that the DOS deal with IBM made the company. "

      Repeating that absurdly false statement doesn't suddenly make it true.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    43. Re:Big deal. by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      To be a chess grandmaster requires a great natural aptitude - but it also requires devotion to practice and study within that very narrow field.

      Or simply enough RAM to index the solution table...

    44. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business acumen takes intelligence.

      No, it just means you know how to manipulate people and are almost without empathy. The former is not very hard; it's just that most people are idiots or have empathy. The latter is a bad thing.

      Real geniuses are people like Einstein; they innovate in truly important ways that help us understand the universe around us. Compared to people like him, businessmen are absolutely nothing, no matter how much money they make.

      This said, chess playing ability is a measure of intelligence, and it's probably better than "what's your favourite TV show", but it's not a great one. Kind of like being the richest man in the world is a measure of intelligence, but not a great one.

      I reject that conclusion, just like I reject the pseudoscience that is IQ. Such simplistic thinking has no place in determining intelligence.

    45. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Those chess grandmasters study the same books and tables extensively.

      Yes but they don't memorize them. Human chess players use pattern recognition and the ability to think stategically. Chess programs don't.

    46. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Especially considering it's possible to put someone in checkmate in 2 to 4 moves.

    47. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Different hardware and the silicon one is better suited to play chess. Humans created and programmed it and that's a great acknowledgement of our skills.

    48. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      What opportunity cost? He doesn't actively earn most of his money, it is continually acquired as a result of past efforts and other people working on his behalf.

    49. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Facts are facts. In 1980, Microsoft had 40 employees and revenues of $7.5 million. By 1983 (after Compaq opened up the 100% IBM-compatible clone market), they had 476 employees and revenues of $50 million.

      They didn't make that money selling CP/M SoftCards or Xenix. Word for DOS wasn't available until the end of the year. They certainly didn't make it from Applesoft BASIC, which was selling like hotcakes with every Apple II, but MS only got a flat fee of $21,000.

      The bulk of Microsoft's revenues in that period was from MS-DOS, which continued to feed them through the end of the '80s. That simply wouldn't have been possible without the IBM deal. Yes, MS had diverse products then (and they still would have done well) but DOS was the cash cow.

    50. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He should have been able to last longer than that.

      That's what Melinda said!

    51. Re:Big deal. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      As has been previously pointed out, it was a Rapid Chess game, with strict time limits. Also, the GM undoubtedly intentionally led Gates into some particularly trappy opening. There are opening lines that can result in a very rapid loss if you make a misstep that is not at all obvious over the board. Grandmasters, of course, have many such lines memorized, and know how to avoid the lines they don't know backwards and forwards.

    52. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Facts are facts."

      Yes. That is what I said. Stop trying to make fiction a fact.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    53. Re:Big deal. by tverbeek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      My SAT score (1510) was almost as high as Mr. Bill's. I scored similarly on the GREs (general and comp-sci), and hit the 90th percentile when I took the LSAT cold (having no idea what kinds of questions would be on it) on a dare. Yet I absolutely suck at chess, and other exercises in tactical or strategic thinking. Despite the literary/cinematic cliché of using "plays chess" to show that someone is really, really smart, it actually reflects only a very specific kind of intelligence, to say nothing of developing the skills and experience to play it well. This match-up was about as meaningful as putting a pro basketball player in a half-pipe competition with a skateboarding whiz.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    54. Re:Big deal. by rochrist · · Score: 1

      That's not true. GMs have many, many openings and endgames memorized.

    55. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah ok but he looks those tables up in his head while playing, because he has them memorized. Much like a computer has them memorized after being programmed with them beforehand.

    56. Re:Big deal. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      Yes but they don't memorize them.

      Actually, yes, they do. Memorization (particularly of opening variations) is very much a part of chess mastery.

    57. Re:Big deal. by Rich0 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Those chess grandmasters study the same books and tables extensively.

      Yes but they don't memorize them. Human chess players use pattern recognition and the ability to think stategically. Chess programs don't.

      Serious chess player memorize quite a few openers. That's probably why Carlsen used so little clock time - he was still in his opening library and booking up time for the middle game (which is really the only place that serious players spend time). Or, if they did wander out of the library it was only because Gates made a questionable move, and the reason they're questionable is that the book of stats show that they usually lead to losses.

    58. Re:Big deal. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      If his facts are true as stated, he appears to have an unassailable case. Are disputing them? You have yet to state any evidence for your side of the argument.

    59. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And you know that Gates has more than a fundamental understanding of the game how?
       
      If it wasn't for a bunch of open sores wankers wanting to being able to throw shitballs at Gates this wouldn't even be posted here. Most of you fucks don't understand chess at the level of a seriously ranked player anyway, let alone a grandmaster. Then again, most of you fucks don't know how to code too but that doesn't stop you from saying that the virtue of open source is that you can make it into your own.

    60. Re:Big deal. by drkim · · Score: 1

      Perhaps chess should only be played by machines...

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

    61. Re:Big deal. by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...That said I wonder if he would beat Carlsen in a test of VB skills ;).

      I would think his best strategy would just be to pay Carlsen to lose.

    62. Re:Big deal. by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      You're kind of stupid, too. Why would we use two multipliers (milli and nano)?

    63. Re:Big deal. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      This was speed chess - Bill Gates had to finish the game in 2min, and Carlson had 30s. Neither could just sit and think about moves.

    64. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Are you shitting me? The claim is that the deal was the "biggest ever deal in the history of Software." If you would like me to dispute that claim directly, you are an idiot. Here is all the references you will ever need. Just off then top of my head, here is a company that had done far, far, far more with software at the time. They even went so far as to create high quality software; a feat that M$ never did pull off, even after hiring one of DECs lead OS architects (Cutler.) The reason Gates was able to get the deal was because it wasn't a great deal. Nobody knew that the internet would explode and cause everybody and their baby's mama to want a computer. In other words, Gates made a deal. It wasn't a big deal. It wasn't a huge deal. It was a tiny little deal. The fact that history unfolded in such a way that Gates completely lucked out and got the opportunity to turn M$ into a criminal enterprise and make billions has nothing to do with it, and calling it some huge deal based on incredible insight is flatly revisionist. It wasn't a big deal. Period. Claiming it was some great accomplishment, or even that it was a huge deal, is disingenuous at best.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    65. Re:Big deal. by crabel · · Score: 2

      To quote Magnus Carlsen from a recent interview: "I find playing against computers very depressing. I don’t like losing." http://venturebeat.com/2014/01... Of course, computers profit alot from opening books alot and the books must be tuned to their play. Computers play best against humans if they avoid positions that require highly positional play (basically closed positions). The benefit of endgame tables isn't that clear. It is very costly to hit the database, giving a benefit only in some positions. Till 2013 Nalimov tablebases were pretty much standard, but they have been replaced by Syzygy tablebases, with better compression and better performance. Anyway, I don't think that even a Magnus Carlsen, whose playing style is very, very good against computers would win against a match against monsters like Stockfish, Komodo or Houdini.

    66. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shit, all you have to do is Google "MS-DOS sales" "Microsoft revenues" etc.

      Take a look at this: 1979, after selling 1 million copies of BASIC, MS revenues were $2.5 million. By 1983 revenues were $69 million after selling 500,000 copies of MS-DOS.
        - Microsoft Corp. Chronology, http://www.redciencia.cu/empres/Intempres2000/Sitio/Principal/Conferencias/CUBA_Inteligencia%20Empresarial/victor/bcrc5.htm

      Or you can quote mine:

      “Hundreds of thousands of computers were sold in the early ’80s, and a copy of MS-DOS was sold along with almost every one. The huge sales of MS-DOS fueled Microsoft’s financial growth, increasing the company’s annual revenue from $16 million in 1981 to $24.5 million in 1982.”
        - The Story of Microsoft, Nell Musolf

      “Since IBM was using Microsoft’s software, these companies also chose Microsoft products. By 1982, Microsoft had hired 200 employees to keep up with the increased demand for its products. Microsoft earned nearly $25 million in 1982.”
        - The Story of Microsoft, Adele Richardson

      “When IBM introduced its first IBM-PC on August 12, 1981, the computer ran on Microsoft’s MS-DOS operating system. By December 1984, it was clear that MS-DOS was established as the dominant operating system in the market. By June 1986, income from licensing MS-DOS accounted for half of Microsoft’s annual revenues of $60.9 million.”
        - The Making of Microsoft, Daniel Ichbiah

      “At the end of 1983, I was hired by keye/donna/pearlstein to run a new account: Microsoft. At the time, Microsoft was dependent on the revenues from MS-DOS and the version licensed to IBM, PC-DOS, for the bulk of its income.”
        - http://bigmoneyonlinejobindia.blogspot.com/2009/02/pc-marketing-history.html

      “In 1980 the company had sold the MS-DOS operating system to IBM when it made its irresistible entry into the desktop computing marketplace and established industry standards that have yet to be supplanted. The revenue from that partnership gave Gates a guaranteed income stream and the push he needed to make his vision—Microsoft software on every desktop PC—come true.”
        - Hard Drive: Bill Gates and the Making of the Microsoft Empire, James Wallace & Jim Erickson

      “Microsoft continued to prosper, with MS-DOS making up a larger and larger share of the company’s revenues.”
        - Fire in the Valley: The Making of the Personal Computer

      “The success of the IBM-type PC, the importance of compatibility and the headstart that IBM provided to MS-DOS were all a boon to Microsoft, which quickly became the dominant producer of operating systems. In 1992 MS-DOS accounted for 60% of shipments of operating systems for all types of PCs and more than 80% of the operating systems that used some version of DOS. By mid-1993, cumulatively, about 120 million copies of MS-DOS had been installed on PCs, as had another 50 million copies of Microsoft's Windows (an overlay program that simplifies the manipulation of MS-DOS).”
        - Stern Business: Antitrust vs. Microsoft: Who Won? Lawrence J. White

      Oh, lest I forget the gratuitous ad-hominem:
      "Zero__Kelvin is a bull-headed, arrogant asshole."
        - Me

    67. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Shit, all you have to do is Google "MS-DOS sales" "Microsoft revenues" etc."

      You forgot one important detail. For your approach to work you would have to live in a world where M$ was the only software in existence. If you compare those numbers to DECs for example, you'll realize that M$ was nothing more than a pimple on the dick of the software industry at the time.

      ""Zero__Kelvin is a bull-headed, arrogant asshole." - me

      You should probably learn to understand the English language. Refusing to say you are wrong when you are not wrong is not "bullheaded arrogance"; it's called being right, knowing it, and not forgetting it because some under-educated revisionist historian(s) would like me to start believing their bullshit rather than the facts..

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    68. Re:Big deal. by Toad-san · · Score: 1

      Yep, he probably would've whipped me in three. Don't feel bad, Bill. Your talents lay elsewhere.

    69. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you compare those numbers to DECs for example, you'll realize that M$ was nothing more than a pimple on the dick of the software industry at the time.

      You love to criticize people for poor reading comprehension, so take a look up the thread and realize that I am not defending the DOS deal as the "biggest deal in software ever," I'm only saying that it WAS the ONE deal that enabled Microsoft to eventually become THE biggest software vendor, ever.

      You should probably learn to understand the English language. Refusing to say you are wrong when you are not wrong is not "bullheaded arrogance"; it's called being right, knowing it, and not forgetting it because some under-educated revisionist historian(s) would like me to start believing their bullshit rather than the facts..

      Well, suck it up then, because you are, in fact, wrong. Where would Microsoft be today if IBM had said, "no thanks, we're going solely with CP/M." ?

    70. Re:Big deal. by Jstlook · · Score: 1

      I concur; I'd argue Bill Gates won if you consider the relative time each player spent honing their craft in the game. Gates had a fun piece of PR, and Fritz got a feather in his cap. Though tough to estimate, consider how much 71 seconds of Gates' time is worth.
      Quick googling shows a 2013 net worth of 72 B, and 2.52455e9 seconds in 80 years. Even a rough estimate means that match cost thirty bucks [72,000,000,000 / 2.52455e9]. Gates essentially said 'Hey kid, playing this game isn't worth a fifty to me.'

      --
      ---jstlook ---For that is the way of Elves, for they say both yes AND no, and mean every word of it. --- J.R.R.T.
    71. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Of course Gates would be expected to lose, and it would be a shocker if he didn't lose.

      I know, right? What were people expecting to read? "BILL GATES DEFEATS WORLD CHESS CHAMPION" ? As if!

    72. Re:Big deal. by HuguesT · · Score: 2

      Computer chess ranking and human ranking are not exactly comparable (even though they use the same basic system), because they don't often play against each other. The tournaments are separate. Also the computers don't play in the same way vs. other machines as vs. human opponents. So the outcome is hard to predict on any particular game. However over enough games, for sure Fritz would win.

    73. Re:Big deal. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      No, the site specifically says 2mn *per move* for Gates vs 30s for Carlson.

    74. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Do me a favor, sit quietly for 2 minutes and do nothing. Does it seem that fast to you?

    75. Re:Big deal. by HuguesT · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Sorry my friend, I am not a fan of Microsoft at all but I lived through this period and there definitely a time before the deal between Microsoft and IBM and a time after. The deal was a watershed. It changed everything.

      The area before that deal was one of fragmentation and hobbyists on the personal computer front, and very expensive minis and mainframes on the business front. The only capable personal computer was the Apple ][ which was a significant business success. It had a modicum of business software, one of which was VisiCalc. This software package alone, the first spreadsheet for PCs, probably motivated IBM to build their own PC.
      In 1981, Apple were so sure of themselves that they ran adverts Welcoming IBM to the world of Personal Computers. Apart from the Apple ][ there were a plethora of 8-bit hobbyist computers, often based on the Z-80 or one of its variants like the Sinclair. These were cheap. Apple ][ were expensive. Apple was not interested in licensing their software or hardware.

      Normally IBM should have simply paid for an OS outright or developed one themselves. They made that deal with Microsoft which ensured that MS would retain the most important property rights, which allowed them to sell MS-DOS to compatible PC builders. Nobody at IBM had foreseen the rise of compatible PC makers. Bill Gates had. By 1986 or so, capable PCs were everywhere. The hardware was simple, they were all compatible to a high degree to the business-friendly IBM PC, they could all run the same software, and they were cheap. Nobody bought an Apple ][ anymore. The 8-bit hobbyist computers had all but disappeared.

      Without that deal compatible PCs would simply not have existed. I completely concur with the notion that this is the most important *deal* in the history of software.

      Please come up with an alternative *deal* with an higher significance if you do not agree (and not a mere link to google.com)

      Cheers.

    76. Re:Big deal. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      DEC may have done more with software in a technical sense, but Microsoft made more money from it,

      The fact that history unfolded in such a way that Gates completely lucked out and got the opportunity to turn M$ into a criminal enterprise and make billions has nothing to do with it, and calling it some huge deal based on incredible insight is flatly revisionist.

      Oh, Please! Gates may have been lucky with the clones, but knowing that the PC market would be huge didn't require that much insight.

    77. Re:Big deal. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      M$

      All credibility is lost. I decide this match in the favor of the AC, on account of new facts that prove beyond any doubt that Zero__Kelvin is a myopic retard with an agenda.

    78. Re:Big deal. by ApplePy · · Score: 1

      The truth is he can't write decent software and never could, is no visionary, and merely saw the potential of applying the Mafia business model to a software company.

      Point 1 there, true or not, is irrelevant, and I doubt Bill Gates lies awake nights worrying about all those software development skills he missed out on learning.

      But not visionary? I'm sorry -- I'm no Windows fanboy -- but you do not get to where he's gotten without a vision. Even if you have help, and step on everyone on the way up, it still takes a powerful vision and sheer force of will to carry it out. Hell, I bet even Stallman would give him that.

      --
      That I'm right, and you don't like it, doesn't mean I'm a troll.
    79. Re:Big deal. by WalksOnDirt · · Score: 1

      Carlsen played a non-standard opening and included an unsound sacrifice. He had probably looked at the first few moves for his blitz games, but no deeper since he would never play it in serious games.

      Gates had two minutes for the entire game. For someone who is not obsessed with chess that is not enough time to make even sort of good moves.

      --
      a,e,i,o,u and sometimes w and y (at be if of up cwm by)
    80. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I completely concur with the notion that this is the most important *deal* in the history of software.

      I would argue that Apple's, er, "assimilation" of BSD is comparable in scope of market effect.

      But, to be fair, your stipulation of a "deal" probably implies a lot more direct assent and prospective mutual benefit for the developers than Apple's actions definitionally warrant.

    81. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Computers do not actively study while playing. That would involve updating their databases. It would be rather pointless, but actually in a past computer chess scandal, a team was accused of having had humans update the computer during the match. So that is the actual situation where the computer is "studying" during the game. But no, the computers finish building their databases long before a game starts. All they do after the game starts is the same thing the human does; recall various patterns, past games, etc., and calculate lines.

      It might be really shocking to the average human the type of memory top GMs have. They might glance at your move, and they instantly know that the move was never played in a published game, but that GM So-and-so evaluated the move in his analysis of another game between Foo and Bar, where a different move was actually made.

      Even a State Champion level chess player you can probably name an opponent and a tournament that they played in 5 years ago, and they can just reach down to the board and show you the whole game, with no pauses to think, and explaining the competing themes.

      The average "genius" human who didn't learn chess as a child and has only casual experience is going to get mauled, quickly, by an average human who grew up playing. That is just the nature of chess. Intelligence helps, memory helps more, but formal lessons from an early age helps the most.

      Magnus has all three, and is higher rated than any other human in history.

    82. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 2

      Chess programs only got to around 2600 rating by just brute-forcing analysis of lines. Magnus can crush a 2600 without much effort. They last longer than Gates, of course.

      The reason chess computers are so strong is that there are a large number of human GrandMasters who work with the chess computer companies in order to identify and program the patterns that human players use. They also use various statistical techniques for the computer to identify known patterns and themes. Without all these advanced pattern techniques, the number of possible moves grows too fast for the computer to check all the lines. Doubling the computer power doesn't even give you a single additional move depth that you can brute-force, once you're past 14 half-moves or so. And 14 half-moves isn't deep enough to see all the traps a GM has waiting for you.

      It is not like running, where the fasted human might only be twice as fast as the average. There are level after level of chess skill, and the very best humans are simply better than the best that computers can do without quality pattern recognition.

      Your point is from, like, 1986 or something.

    83. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'm at better than the 90% percentile in rated chess (in the US), and I'd get mated in 71 seconds too, or else more likely just flag after 2 minutes. The format is a joke; even with 5 minutes, it is well known that a club player like me needs more time than that just to walk through the basics and not blunder. With a rating difference, less time hurts the lower rated player. And 2 minutes is the fastest possible to play, and is much faster than most players ever play, including in casual games. 3 minutes is the fastest you'll normally see at a chess club, and even that is too fast for most of the players who like blitz. Normally at a chess club there will be people playing 5 minute, and others playing much longer time controls.

      In computer chess people play as fast as 1 minute, but only because clicking is faster than moving a piece with your hand and pressing the button on a clock.

    84. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yep. We should also stop running foot races, because, well, trains.

    85. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Gates makes more money than Magnus Carlsen, but I suspect that right now Carlsen, who just won the World Chess Championship, and has a side job as a model, could command higher rates for promotional appearances.

      Even attempting to negotiate a higher fee would be a waste of Gates' time.

    86. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Yeah, if he had played carefully and lost slowly, this wouldn't even be a headline.

    87. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      That's not true, the old MS-BASIC (pre-DOS) was quality software. It left out lots of features you would have wanted, but managed to get a working BASIC onto a tiny ROM that was appropriate for early personal computers. A lot of people didn't think you could get a high level language into that small a space and still have it be useful. As a child I used various computers that had those ROMs, or copycats. It was important work that pushed computing forwards.

      Their early spreadsheets were also very good.

      It is likely that Gates was a better software developer than the programmers he hired, and that he stopped writing code entirely long before the IBM deal, to focus on business.

    88. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Biggest in what way? Okay, it wasn't biggest using the metric you used, but that doesn't prove anything. Maybe it was biggest by having the biggest consequences in the future? Maybe it did, or didn't, but you don't establish anything at all with your argument. All you have are some bare assertions.

      Revisionist is going back and saying that what happened that mattered didn't matter unless the people doing it knew the future and exactly how it would matter.

      Gates didn't know the future, but he knew he wanted a deal, not that had the biggest cash payouts, but that made people count on his company, that made his company the one with platform lock. I'm of the opinion that it was the biggest deal, the most important deal, because of how harmful it was to the industry in the future. But like it or not, claiming that MS establishing platform lock wasn't a huge deal... that's just daft. And revisionist.

    89. Re:Big deal. by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      IMO speed chess is for douches. It is all about proving you've memorized a lot of stuff rather than having time to reason through a problem and find a solution. No time to properly access the "emotion" that the other player plays with either (do they gamble, always attack etc)? With speed chess you are playing the next move in the sequence you've memorized not thinking.

    90. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      "Computers do not actively study while playing."

      I really feel bad about your inability to get a clue. Seriously. Why do you think that a multi-parallel system cannot study and play in "real time". Please elaborate, so I can help you get a clue.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    91. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "- but you do not get to where he's gotten without a vision"

      I accept your claim that you have no idea what you are talking about. Consider yourself absolved. (I accept your apology)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    92. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself moron. Seriously.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    93. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      Just accept that you are a clueless moron. Any idiot who supports the phenomenally absurd claim that:

      ". Nobody at IBM had foreseen the rise of compatible PC makers. "

      misses the point (almost certainly purposefully) that Gates didn't see it either. Agaijn, you are a fucking idiot. Your claim is that nobody at IBM saw the potential. That is certainty true. You left out the fact that Gates had no idea about the potential either. You "conveniently" left out that Xerox PARC, and every one else on the planet thought home computers were a joke (excepting the true innovator, Steve Wozniak.) I was one of the few that saw where it was all going. Gates was not one of the few. Didn't you hear? The Road Ahead? The Internet is just a FAD!!!! (Gates' words)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    94. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Why do you think that a multi-parallel system cannot study and play in "real time".

      Because I am familiar with the code and so I know that they "do not" study and play at the same time. I did not say that they "cannot." They are not programmed to do so, and if they were, it would be considered cheating. And the time it was accused, there was a clear line between altering the program, and running the program.

    95. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "DEC may have done more with software in a technical sense, but Microsoft made more money from it,"

      I accept your claim that you have no idea what you are talkiing about, and decided to make phenomenally ridiculous claims that any first year "googler" could disprove.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    96. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      Just when I hate AC's one says something of import. Sort of. It was Job's visit to Xerox PARC that lead to the popularity of the GUI (and .Apple didn't steal it, unlike the digital Capone, Gates) Microsoft was an innovator Exactly ZERO times in its history. Name ONE TIME they didn't provide a third rate product.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    97. Re:Big deal. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Don't tell me what to do you god damn bully.

    98. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      "Biggest in what way? Okay, it wasn't biggest using the metric you used, but that doesn't prove anything"

      You seem to have bought into the delusion that the guy who invented the "Pet Rock" was a visionary. OOOOHHHH look at my Tiger Repellent O/S!!! It welcomes Virie with open arms, and in fact encourages them because it makes US money, but it repels TIGERS! Pick a metric. I'll blow it out of the water.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    99. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1
      Once again, and AC disproves the rule (sort of). So to get it straight: I'm clearly correct:

      "and realize that I am not defending the DOS deal as the "biggest deal in software ever," "

      , but instead of just admitting that I'm right, you want to look like a fool ... you apparently won't be happy until you do.

      "Well, suck it up then, because you are, in fact, wrong"

      Are you seriuosly so stupid that you admit I'm right at the beginning of your post and then end it by claiming I'm wrong >?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    100. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      "Sorry my friend, I am not a fan of Microsoft at all but I lived through this period and there definitely a time before the deal between Microsoft and IBM and a time after."

      I took a shit today. There was definitely a time before I took the shit, and one after it. If my shit turned out to be gold I still would be a guy that took a shit, not a visionary.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    101. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Look at the BSD license. Apple didn't steal a thing. .

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    102. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      ". I did not say that they "cannot."

      I accept your lame apology, coupled with your easily disproved claim

      " They are not programmed to do so"

      They? I get it. It is actually blatantly obvious. Any system programmed by morons like yourself would not have a chance. I was referring to a system that wasn't designed by douche bags who defy Evolution.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    103. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry. I over-stepped my bounds. I can see it hits close to home.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    104. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Oh, Please! Gates may have been lucky with the clones, but knowing that the PC market would be huge didn't require that much insight"

      Assuming you are correct, name all the people who had the insight. Try to keep it under a thousand ....

      (did I mention that you are a fucking moron?)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    105. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, as usual you talk past people and pretend the misunderstanding is THEIR fault, because they are uneducated, have poor reading comprehension, etc. all the while just asserting you're "right" without anything to back it up. THAT’S asshole bullheadedness. Fer Chrissakes, you posted a link to GOOGLE saying "all the references you will ever need are here." As if to say, "I'm right and THE WORLD proves it." Sheer arrogance.

      For the record, I said "the DOS deal with IBM made the company," and everything I posted after that backs it up. That is the ONLY point I was arguing. You’re right, before that deal, Microsoft WAS “nothing more than a pimple on the dick of the software industry.” Even then, success was not guaranteed. That’s why they went to bed with IBM on OS/2. Windows and Office were just a glint on the horizon.

      YOU said "Gates made a deal. It wasn't a big deal. It wasn't a huge deal. It was a tiny little deal." And you are utterly, spectacularly WRONG about that. It was a HUGE deal, even if Gates didn't realize how big it was at the time. I think he did, but that can't be proven. He turned a $50,000 investment into a billion dollar business.

      Remember, Gates's vision was "Microsoft software on every desktop," and he achieved that on the back of the IBM deal. That is history, my man, and it has been widely documented, but you just pooh-pooh it. Amazing.

    106. Re:Big deal. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      You're forgiven. Having since calmed down, I now realize that your level of social functioning is somewhere between that of APK and the fetid asshole spammer, so I also apologize for setting my expectations of you too high. I hope that with this misunderstanding out of the way we can be friends again, but I still hope that you will work on maturing past the `M$' antics typical of 11 year olds.

    107. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Well, a pet rock has more internet security than a computer.

    108. Re:Big deal. by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      If you actually watch the video, they were playing a timed game. The World Champion (funny how the slashdot title omits that minor detail??) had 30 seconds, Bill had 2 minutes.

    109. Re:Big deal. by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      It's wrong then, those times were for the whole game. If you watch the video of the match, this is clear.

    110. Re:Big deal. by smash · · Score: 2

      Exactly. It's nothing to do with the technology involved, Microsoft basically fucked IBM and that one deal was a critical factor in turning Microsoft into the largest software house in the history of computing. I hate Microsoft's software as much as the next guy, but there is no denying how much of a win Microsoft had over IBM with that. The computing landscape today would be very different if the specifics of that particular deal were in IBM's favor.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    111. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh! Feeling so nostalgic right now. Zero Kelvin, once one of Slashdot's most notorious trolls, back again. Haven't seen any posts from you in the past 4 years at least. Nice to see you trolling again, asshole.

    112. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Gates didn't know the future, but he knew he wanted a deal

      Exactly. Gates didn't NEED to know the future-- he'd already learned his lesson with MITS and BASIC: never let the OEM keep the rights to the software!

    113. Re:Big deal. by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      The GUI is a fairly obvious idea. Xerox made one of the first, but if they hadn't then someone else would have soon enough.

      Though perhaps not using a mouse. There are many forms of positional input hardware around now, it's quite possible that in a slightly different history another would have become dominant and we could all be steering cursors around with trackballs, or precision analog joysticks, or light pens.

    114. Re:Big deal. by Vintermann · · Score: 1

      It's well known that Carlsen isn't super-thrilled at these sort of exhibition games with unranked players, so Gates is just being nice by playing quickly. He'd lose anyway...

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    115. Re:Big deal. by Vintermann · · Score: 2

      They might glance at your move, and they instantly know that the move was never played in a published game, but that GM So-and-so evaluated the move in his analysis of another game between Foo and Bar, where a different move was actually made.

      Yeah, Carlsen is very impressive in this regard. But remember, while this might seem an insane feat of memory, it's made possible primarily because the moves (and the discussion of the moves) makes profound sense to the top level chess players. It's not like memorizing a random sequence.

      Even a little bit of randomization shakes up their assumptions. I don't know for chess, but for Go (which is much harder for computers, and computers are still only at a high club level of play) there have been experiments with that. If you instead of starting with an empty board, start with, say 16 random moves, you get a position from which the computer will trounce even Go pros - regardless of color. The Go pro's understanding of the game is so tied up in situations that are likely to arise from sensible play (from at least one player), that they evaluate random positions far worse than computers.

      --
      xkcd is not in the sudoers file. This incident will be reported.
    116. Re:Big deal. by gordo3000 · · Score: 1

      chess is similar, there are tests showing chess grandmasters are no better than a random person at memorizing pieces on a board that are random (i.e. not reachable in a reasonable game).

    117. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Just shut the fuck up, be a man, and admit that you are wrong. If you aren't man enough to do that then ... off you go!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    118. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Maybe if you were competent enough to create a Slashdot account and log into it I would read your post. ( AC == auto_tldr)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    119. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      It depends on the computer and the situation. A computer that has never been connected to the net has the same internet security as a tiger repellent rock.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    120. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 0

      For thousands of years nobody conceived a GUI. If Xerox PARC hadn't come along the GUI would still happen, but it may well have been decades later. Bear in mind that in context a decade is a HUGE percentage of the entire life of computing. You are like the moron that carried his goods to market for years by hand, then saw someone with a cart one day and said: "The WHEEL is a fairly obvious idea"

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    121. Re:Big deal. by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      From looking at the final position, visible in the video, I too could beat him in 71 seconds. Basically the only thing that would affect the timing is how quickly Gates would move.

    122. Re:Big deal. by DaveV1.0 · · Score: 1

      Exactly how long do you think YOU would last against a chess grand-master?

      --
      There is no "-1 offended" or "-1 you don't agree with me" mod options for a reason.
    123. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh. Just as I thought, you got nothin'. Empty hand. You lose. :)

    124. Re:Big deal. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      No no, that'd be mN.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    125. Re:Big deal. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      No one can actually play a decent-length chess game in 30 seconds, can they? I would think it would take at least 1 second to physically complete a move, with no time for thinking at all. If that's true, sounds like they were (rightly) assuming the guy would win early.

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    126. Re:Big deal. by colinrichardday · · Score: 1

      And what great knowledge have you demonstrated?

    127. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're confusing it with the Newton. This is the new ton.

    128. Re:Big deal. by TangoMargarine · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't that make more sense as mnt?

      --
      Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
    129. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You know what makes a joke funnier? Explaining it.

    130. Re:Big deal. by Pseudonym+Authority · · Score: 1

      Wow, that sure was a quick change of heart on your part. I think you should talk to your doctor about getting evaluated for bipolar disorder.

    131. Re:Big deal. by smash · · Score: 1

      Where are DEC now? The effects of the Microsoft / IBM deal are still being felt today. Sorry but you're either incredibly short sighted, or just plain don't know what you're talking about. The specifics of that deal with IBM ensured Microsoft were carried by the PC revolution through the 80s and early 90s for essentially free (you can't tell me there was any significant DOS development since the 80s).

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    132. Re:Big deal. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Probably just trying to get it done with before the commercial break. In any case, if you watch the clocks the time was cumulative.

    133. Re:Big deal. by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      Do me a favor, sit quietly for 2 minutes and do nothing. Does it seem that fast to you?

      If you take two minutes to make your first move then you'll lose on your second when the flag drops. This was 2 minutes to play an entire game of chess. You'd spend half that time just moving the pieces and clicking the button in a 20 move game.

    134. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      I'm only a class player, but it isn't just that it makes sense. That is part of it. But even where it makes sense, most strong players can't remember thousands of lines 15 or 20 moves deep.

      My best tournament game ever, a win against 2150+ player in standard time controls, was a Budapest Gambit where my opponent made a weak early queen exchange on d6, after which I slowly punished him, won a pawn, and the game. I understand the themes. I understand the game. If you played out the moves, I can explain each move. But I could not just reach down and make all the moves cold. I could memorize a few games like that if I tried; but certainly not a random one of my games from month, much less last year.

      My friend is 2300 rated. He can recite most of the games he ever played. And he doesn't actually have a good memory compared to most people his rating; he wins via tactics. Many of the 2200 players at the tournaments have a much better memory than him.

      Players over 2700 ("Super-GMs") generally are familiar with all or nearly all the games played by the other 2700s their whole careers, plus thousands of historic games, and thousands of 2600-level games with significant openings. Plus they memorize large numbers of lines that haven't been played, because they have to in order to play at that level. They have to have prepared surprises for all their opponents, because their opponents do too.

    135. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      [citation required]

    136. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, I see that now - I was going by the erroneous assertion that it was 2 min. per move for Bill, not 2 min. cumulative game time. Sorry 'bout that.

    137. Re: Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not the article but took 5 minutes to find a blog referencing the tests from 60 years back:

      http://delanceyplace.bmobilized.com/?ref=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.google.co.uk%2F&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.delanceyplace.com%2Fview_archives.php%3F1687

      If you want the article it's easy to find if you have a college library

    138. Re:Big deal. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Apple did not assimilate BSD, NeXT had done that before and Apple inherited it. Unfortunately Darwin/OSX is only weakly BSD. It misses all the great features of OpenBSD (security) or FreeBSD (ZFS, jails) or NetBSD (available everywhere) in return for being easy to use (which is a great feature).

    139. Re:Big deal. by HuguesT · · Score: 1

      Who is talking about PARC? IBM in 1980 certainly did not think personal computers were a joke, else they would not have started their own PC project. Of course Gates had seen the potential! He knew how PC worked, and that a compatible market to the IBM-PC would emerge in short order. In fact as someone else has pointed out in this thread, there were MS-DOS compatible PCs before Compaq did their reverse-engineering of the IBM-PC ROM, allowing for a higher degree of compatibility.

      Microsoft was not really interested in the home market until fairly late. They did produce Flight Simulator in the 1980s but it was an outlier. They made their money selling to OEM and businesses. The Internet and the Gates books you mentions are 1990s era. Much later.

      Before 1980 or so Gates was very well connected already and Microsoft was a huge figure in 8-bit computing. Everybody wanted their MS-Basic interpreter. He knew what was going on in this field.

      You don't have to insult everybody who disagrees with you. That does not make you sound more intelligent.

      Cheers.

    140. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Being on Slashdot, the only way you would "get mated in 71 seconds", would involve a tube sock and hand moisturiser.

    141. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      A computer that has never been connected to the net has the same internet security as a tiger repellent rock.

      False. A computer that you believe has never been connected might very well have been. And computers can even use the sound device as a network connection. You should probably open the case and drop the computer into salt water for a few days if you want it to be as secure as a pet rock.

    142. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "False. A computer that you believe has never been connected might very well have been"

      I totally agree with you! You are saying "Oh No: If a computer has been connected and you don't know it and you use that it isn't true! I totally agree with you that if I had a computer that was connected to the net, then that is completely different. Alas, if you stopped to think, I it is very easy to prove, because you missed the implied clause that we are talking about a drive wipe and a clean install. It doesn't matter what happened prior to that.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    143. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "Who is talking about PARC?"

      People who know what they are talking about. You also are totally missing the fact that the IBM PC was supposed to be a business machine and the "Personal" just meant that you had your own dedicated computer rather than timesharing with a dumb terminal. Which reminds me, I've already done way too much time sharing with you.

      "You don't have to insult everybody who disagrees with you. That does not make you sound more intelligent."

      When you actually are highly intelligent, you don't worry if people know it or not. They will always figure out on their own eventually, but again, who cares?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    144. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      DEC is gone because they refused to figure out that proprietary was passe. I was a VAX/VMS System Manager right before they started hitting hard times. I can tell you it had nothing to do with Gates.

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    145. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "And what great knowledge have you demonstrated?"

      I gave them the greatest source of knowledge ever. Teach a man to fish and all that. (See the link in the quote)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    146. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      So? You wiped a drive. So what. It is still not secure. You only believe it is. It could have all sorts of problems. It could have a USB drive plugged into a header on the board. It could have firmware made in China that can be remote-controlled with an unknown signal from a satellite.

      The funny part is that my position is from like, sysadmin 101. A computer is not secure. Even a computer you think is unpowered is not entirely secure; it could (this has been demonstrated in the lab) draw power from the battery and create a network connection over the air via a built-in speaker.

      Doing something silly like a "drive wipe" doesn't give you security; past OR future. How do you know that drive's firmware is secure? You don't know.

      So no, I didn't miss anything at all. The computer is never 100% secure, the rock is always more secure.

    147. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      " The computer is never 100% secure, the rock is always more secure."

      Only because you don't know what secure means. Later, or better yet not ...

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    148. Re:Big deal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > DEC is gone because they refused to figure out that proprietary was passe.

      That's supposed to be an argument for why Microsoft is still around? What Microsoft product has ever been NON-proprietary??

    149. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Dude, it is 101 level stuff. Get a clue. Or at least some root.

    150. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      Dude it's ROCK 101! You don't know if your Tiger Repellant rock is really a Tiger Repellant rock! It might be advanced NSA technology! The word "secure" in this context means secure from attacks via the net. I love your convoluted logic: Oh NOZE!!!! It might be vulnerable to compromise if it has already been compromised! Do you even realize how little you grasp basic logic? (Hint: You can't take away the virginity of a woman who has already lost it)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    151. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      No. That is an argument for why they won't be around for much longer :-) Of course it misses the point completely, since the entire M$ ecosystem is based around non-proprietary hardware. You evidently didn't know that DEC sold hardware?

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    152. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      It is funny that you think that network security basics are "convoluted logic."

      If it is connected to a network, it is not secure. Period. It is at best partially secure. Thinking something can be secure is starting off with carelessness. They will attack and crack in unexpected ways, exploiting unknown holes; so however secure you think it is, it is less secure than that.

      And being unplugged is not always good enough. You obviously don't know about the traditional work done in this area, but at least look at the Snowden leaks regarding government-sponsored attacks where they plug a USB device into a machine one time, and then later that machine attacks other machines... using high pitched sounds from the speaker as a network medium. Even if you think it isn't plugged into a network, it might very well be. You don't know. You can't know. What we do know is that there are back doors in much of the available hardware.

      You can't use "basic logic" to understand computer security. It requires actually studying... computer security.

    153. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      "If it is connected to a network, it is not secure."

      Are you slow, or did you forget the original premise. It isn't connected to the network, just like the Tiger Repellant Rock.

      "You can't use "basic logic" to understand computer security. It requires actually studying... computer security."

      No. You can use basic logic to counter any phenomenally illogical statement. You need to go back and start studying basic computer security. If you ever had a clue, you've lost it.

      " where they plug a USB device into a machine one time, and then later that machine attacks other machines... using high pitched sounds from the speaker as a network medium."

      Holy shit. Now I am ROTFLMAO. You seriously believe that!

      "What we do know is that there are back doors in much of the available hardware."

      We do. Great. I can't wait to see all the proof and references!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    154. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      "If it is connected to a network, it is not secure."

      Are you slow, or did you forget the original premise. It isn't connected to the network, just like the Tiger Repellant Rock.

      The problem is you just aren't listening. You THINK it isn't connected. You don't know! You can't know! There are known hardware backdoors in a large percent of installed systems. You just don't know. You don't know. You won't know. You didn't know. You thought you knew, which is why you had this crazy-insane idea that the a computer can be secure.

      It can. If you drop it in salt water for a couple years. Or fire it on a rocket into the Sun. If it functions as a computer, you can't even know if it is under your control, much less that it ISN'T connected to something.

      OTOH if you believe it IS connected to something, you can test that. But there is no way to test the negative; there is no way to know that it isn't connected, that it isn't already cracked, that it doesn't have a hardware backdoor that causes a new firmware to download based on a signal from a satellite. You can't even be sure that it won't then use the sound card to activate a back door on your neighbor's satellite TV system. You just don't know. That is the nature of computer security; you don't know.

      The same is true of physical security; there is no way to be completely sure that there isn't a criminal hiding behind the woodshed, under the house, in a tree, inside the wall, etc. What you can do is to reduce the chances of it, to check and monitor the most likely places. But you still won't have perfect security.

    155. Re:Big deal. by smash · · Score: 1

      If you think Microsoft is going anywhere in a hurry, you're delusional.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    156. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      If only they made Faraday cages. Good luck learning computer security!

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    157. Re:Big deal. by Zero__Kelvin · · Score: 1

      They are half way out the door already. You just haven't been paying attention. Note: I predicted DECs demise just prior to Ken Olsen changing from a no layoff policy and not long before the closed their doors. People like you (short sighted) called me delusional then, too :-)

      --
      Guns don't kill people; Physics kills people! - John Lithgow as Dick Solomon on Third Rock From The Sun
    158. Re:Big deal. by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      If only they made Faraday cages. Good luck learning computer security!

      Derp! It is almost as if you didn't know what a sound card is.

      BTW, I'm a sysadmin. You're being very foolish. If you think a computer is secure, that is guaranteed to be a false sense of security. Read the things I actually wrote.

      Also, a thought experiment... how do you enter a Faraday cage to do maintenance? I'll give you the answer, you don't. It is no longer a Faraday cage. And picture the absurdity of having your motherboards manufactured... and shipped to you... inside a cage. ;)

  5. So What??? by DrNoNo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The definitive example of 'News' is 'Man bites dog'. If Carlsen had established a business empire to rival Microsoft in 71 seconds, that might be news.

    1. Re:So What??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      'Dog bites man' can be news also

    2. Re:So What??? by Boronx · · Score: 1

      If the world biting champion bit Bill Gates, it would be news.

    3. Re:So What??? by epSos-de · · Score: 1

      Furthermore the game was set up to be quick and for fun without much else. Gate lost, because he took the bate in this game.

  6. tl;dr by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guy who specializes in just one thing better at it than someone who doesn't.

  7. lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Would you rather have the money or the chess skills? You have 71 seconds to decide.

    1. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Carlsen earned 800k last november for playing 10 games.

      He is a phenomenon though. And of course everybody is poor by Bill's standards.

    2. Re:lol by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carlsen earned 800k last november for playing 10 games.

      800k ought to be enough for anybody.

  8. 71 seconds.. by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 0
    Must have been the Scholar's mate (didn't see the video). Meaning even a beginner could beat Gates in 71 seconds. Not to minimize Gates success, but

    [he] built a net worth that's in the billions

    could he do the same thing today if he was starting from scratch? Make a rather crappy [D]OS for the [at the time] biggest player in the industry [IBM]? Then perform a "IBM gamble" and become a monopoly? Benefit from being underestimated at the time from competition (Sun, Apple, HP) stubbornly keeping selling overpriced hard/software? Doubt that.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re:71 seconds.. by DarkOx · · Score: 2

      Succeeding in business is about being in the right place at the right time. Some do it buy luck others do it by maneuvering into position. Bill did the latter as did Jobs, they had a gift of vision knowing where they needed to be with what product offering. Sure he made some missteps latter but nobody has a perfect record if they play they game for long, overall though it's real clear Bill has a strong business sense, If anyone could do it today, and now that the industry has matured I am not so sure they could, it would be Bill.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    2. Re:71 seconds.. by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Informative

      Modern chess grandmasters frequently play whats called "lightning" or "bullet" chess with a time control of 60 seconds for each player for all of their moves is the entire game. In this time control, a player who uses 71 seconds has already lost on time.

      Clearly someone who suggests "scholars mate" here such as yourself would not understand that these GM's actually play extremely strongly even with so little time on the clock. While this speed of chess was popularized by computer interfaces and online chess servers, its actually played OTB as well

      Magnus Carlsen is the highest rated chess player ever. The standard ELO chess rating system is set up such that a +200 point difference in ELO equals a 3:1 advantage (a games score is 1.0 for a win, 0.5 for a draw, or 0.0 for a loss ... 3:1 advantage = 0.75 expected value) His rating is over 2800, so against an average opponent with a 1200 rating his advantage is over 6500:1.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:71 seconds.. by Vlad_the_Inhaler · · Score: 4, Informative

      It was not. It was an attack using two knights and the queen, while busily sacrificing material as a smokescreen. Very elegantly done.

      --
      Mielipiteet omiani - Opinions personal, facts suspect.
    4. Re:71 seconds.. by pspahn · · Score: 1

      Someone please call this, ahem, "Carlsen" guy, and set up a series of matches against me. It should take no more than 6500 matches, but I WILL become the new chess grand champion!

      --
      Someone flopped a steamer in the gene pool.
    5. Re:71 seconds.. by smash · · Score: 1

      I dunno, ask Zuckerberg.

      --
      I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    6. Re:71 seconds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This fast-paced style of game is most commonly referred to as "blitz".

    7. Re:71 seconds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd be interested in knowing some examples of the uber successful getting where they are using anything but dumb luck. Being smart or hard working or "maneuvering into position" don't mean anything if you aint lucky.

    8. Re:71 seconds.. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      This fast-paced style of game is most commonly referred to as "blitz".

      No, Blitz is slower than Bullet/Lightning.

      Blitz is typically considered to be games where players have somewhere between 3 minutes and 14 minutes to make all their moves, and most frequently 5 minute or 2 minutes with a 12 seconds increment added after each move.

      Between 15 minutes and 1 hour of often called "Rapid."

      Now STFU when you know that you are ignorant. We both know that you knew that you were ignorant.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:71 seconds.. by Rich0 · · Score: 2

      Gates played in a 'think only of one move' mode, he has no strategy and doesn't even try to look at the board from POV of his opponent, so this was childs game.

      Well, nobody really can strategize in the first few moves - that's why all the serious players memorize books full of opening positions. Any intuition they do have usually just is the result of having studied. There are some strategies that can be employed like steering towards more open/closed play and such, but again it all goes back to the book. Everything is empirical.

      Disclaimer - I'm not all that seriously into chess, so I'm certainly open to enlightenment by somebody who is.

    10. Re:71 seconds.. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      could he do the same thing today if he was starting from scratch?

      Probably. Maybe not to billions, but he surely would have made millions.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    11. Re:71 seconds.. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Not only that, Carlsen had a lot of time to think while Gates was moving.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    12. Re:71 seconds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All right, I admit that I was wrong. Please do not be so angry. I did not want to intentionally spread wrong information.

    13. Re:71 seconds.. by 14erCleaner · · Score: 1

      I won against a number of people with exactly the same (move by move) game

      No, you didn't - Carlsen didn't just play e5 Nf6 Ng4 Qh4 and Qxh2 (the basic Scholar's Mate from the black side). This game was nine move pairs, and included Gates playing Bd3 with his queen pawn still on d2 (a seriously weak move). I suspect that when Carlsen saw that move he knew he could just march his knight and queen over and checkmate Gates with no particular effort required. I think Carlsen only used about 10 seconds on his clock (of the 30 seconds he got - Gates got two minutes).

      --
      Have you read my blog lately?
    14. Re:71 seconds.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It actually wasn't elegant whatsoever. Carlson made a losing move which would have severely handicapped him if Gates responded correctly, however due to the time constraints he was able to trick him and take the win due to the misplay.

  9. 71 seconds to heat a cup of water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You either have a very big cup or Norway is way colder than I think.

  10. This embarrassing situatiog... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    would never have happened if Bill had spent at least 71 seconds practicing with 'Chess Titans' that comes default with Windows 7.

    Get serious Bill! Stop playing Candy Crush!

  11. I could whip the Grandmaster... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If I was a guru at checkers, I could probably whip the Chess Grandmaster in 71 seconds too. Quoting SAT scores and intelligence isn't really relevant. Chess is a learned skill like any other.

  12. chess skill != raw intelligence by zachie · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The most intelligent person in the world would not stand a chance versus an experienced, serious chess aficionado. Being good at chess not only requires raw intelligence, but also strategic and tactical insights that just can't be developed on the fly no matter how intelligent you are, and especially not during a speed chess match.

    Reminds me of the story of world-class poker player Tom Dwan (who has won millions at poker and is likely very intelligent) losing > $50k in misjudging his chances of beating chess International Master Greg Shahade, who was starting the game down a rook (an insurmountable difference when players have remotely similar skill).

    1. Re:chess skill != raw intelligence by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      The most intelligent person in the world would not stand a chance versus an experienced, serious chess aficionado. Being good at chess not only requires raw intelligence, but also strategic and tactical insights that just can't be developed on the fly no matter how intelligent you are, and especially not during a speed chess match.

      I've never lost a game of chess (thank you, thank you) but I pick my games as it takes a lot out of me. Forced into a game by the "barracks chess master" I beat em in two games back to back - left em muttering it's not possible and me with a bad headache.

    2. Re:chess skill != raw intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnus Carlsen is /the/ chess worldchampion. i.e. he is very likely to beat ANYBODY on this planet. A select few are able to force a draw in slightly less than half of the games.

    3. Re:chess skill != raw intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, this exact scenario happened in Hunter x Hunter where the master villain wanted to challenge himself at everything but came across a blind (of course!) Shogi champion little girl. He lost once and again and again and again. No matter how smart he was (probably an IQ over 200), he couldn't defeat that girl. But everything else in life was easy to beat so to not get bored, he kept challenging the girl. She would progressively get stronger as well but her years of experience as a Shogi champion outweighed his intelligence. But then again, there's no telling how smart she is.

    4. Re:chess skill != raw intelligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not even when you were learning how the pieces moved?

  13. trying to lose? by issicus · · Score: 2

    If you place all of your pieces in the right place you can get out of this TV show quicker .

    1. Re:trying to lose? by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Maybe Bill just wanted to get out of this gig as fast as he could.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:trying to lose? by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

      My thoughts exactly. Maybe Bill just wanted to get out of this gig as fast as he could.

      a me too.

    3. Re:trying to lose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Every move including and after he takes the pawn are very bad moves. Only people that only know the moves each piece can make, e.g. a 5 year old, would make such moves. The entire onslaught can be stopped by moving 1 pawn. I suppose it's possible that Gates never played chess in his life, but somehow I find it unlikely; therefore, his moves are intentional in that he knows they are bad.

  14. "The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by arcade · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm sorry, but first off - Magnus Carlsen has been an extremely well known chess player since 2004. Justin Bieber was discovered when? 2008?

    Secondly, while Bieber is famous for being famous.. Carlsen is famous for using his brain and becoming the world champion of chess. He built his career around his brain. Yes, some fashion agency also discovered his good looks and started sponsoring him and using him as a model - but that's not his main work. It's a hobby thing on the side. Good for him.

    For those slightly interested in chess, but not interested enough to normally follow ratings and such - take a look at: http://2700chess.com/ for the up to date live ratings.

    Aronian is doing a massive jump these days due to Tata Steel. I'm guessing the next WCC match will be between Carlsen and Aronian. They're typically rather evenly matched.

    --
    "Rune Kristian Viken" - http://www.nwo.no - arca
    1. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by LordLucless · · Score: 1

      Bieber is famous for singing. Ok, so I don't particularly enjoy his music, but his fame is at least based on a talent - as opposed to people like Paris Hilton, or Kim Kardashion, who never really showed any particular talent, except for self-promotion.

      --
      Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean there isn't an invisible demon about to eat your face
    2. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by jez9999 · · Score: 1

      Aronian is doing a massive jump these days due to Tata Steel.

      Huh? How does a company make the guy better at chess?

    3. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I was thinking the same thing.

      Possible explanations:
      - Tata Steel is actually a person (like Remington Steel).
      - Tata Steel fully sponsors Aronian, allowing him to focus 100% on training to beat high-level opponents;
      - Tata Steel pays mid-level opponents to lose to Aronian, thereby artificially building up his rank / score.
      - Tata Steel is actually the name of a chess tournament which Aronian won, thereby boosting his rank ('massive jump').

      Who knows? I, for one, am certainly not going to bother to RTFA ;-)

    4. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by geekymachoman · · Score: 1

      You emphasize how this guy made a career out of using his brain. So what ??
      Having and/or using a brain is same as having nice voice or being handsome. Something none of us individually wished for. You're born that way - therefore nothing to be proud of.

      Your post is assuming that having a brain and building a career out of it is better or more ... whatever .. than people having a nice body/voice .. talent for music.

      I know this is a nerd web site.. and nerds are same as other groups of people.. biased, but c'mon. Try a bit harder.

    5. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by rolfwind · · Score: 1

      Secondly, while Bieber is famous for being famous.. Carlsen is famous for using his brain and becoming the world champion of chess.

      Maybe you are thinking of Paris Hilton or something (and maybe someone will refute me on her, idk), but JB is famous because he has talent, he appeared in youtube vids that had apparently enough draw for multiple people wanting to sign him:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J...

      You and I may think his music sucks, I don't think he has the talent near, say, some of the Jacksons at his age, but he's not famous simply for being famous.

    6. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a chess tournament sponsored by Tata Steel (formerly Corus and before that Hoogovens) in The Netherlands.
      I'd imagine that doing well there would have an influence on one's rating.
      http://www.tatasteelchess.com

    7. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by James_Duncan8181 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sure, although it's worth noting that Bieber is more of a heartthrob that sings. That's not to knock his singing per se, but he's no grand master and certainly wouldn't be globally #1 rated. Just like Hilton, his main skill is being very charismatic in an attention economy and he primarily supplies eyeballs.

      Carlsen plays the best chess in the world and happens to be attractive. That's the difference.

      --
      "To any truly impartial person, it would be obvious that I am right."
    8. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good looks?! I see the barrier is pretty low in the chess world.

    9. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >Secondly, while Bieber is famous for being famous..

      Does that make him meta-famous?

    10. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by fisted · · Score: 1

      Eh, the only talent invovled there is potential coding talent of the autotune devs, m8.

    11. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Kjella · · Score: 1

      Secondly, while Bieber is famous for being famous.. Carlsen is famous for using his brain and becoming the world champion of chess.

      He's become far more famous than his chess skills taken in isolation should indicate, much like Bieber and his musical skills. If he's been 10+ years older, not so good looking and still the world's #1 in chess he'd be much less famous - and I suppose that applies to Bieber and his music too. Half his fame is built on being a teenager beating chess masters twice his age and unlike so many other prodigies that falter when they grow older he's now beating them all - and he has looks good enough to be a model on top. It's the kind of thing the media loves to gobble up and fame seems to be something of a rolling snowball, once they've created a superstar they love coming back for follow-ups. In that sense, I feel the comparison is apt.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    12. Re: "The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by NapalmV · · Score: 1

      Justin is famous for "looking cute", his singing alone wouldn't have brought him this far.

    13. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Frankie70 · · Score: 1

      Aronian is doing a massive jump these days due to Tata Steel.

      What does that mean?

    14. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

      I'd pick number 2. Number 3 is unlikely, and numbers 1 and 4 are just untrue, as Tata Steel is indeed a large Indian steel manufacturer.

    15. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bieber may be known for singing but he's famous for his looks.
       
      I have little to no doubt that Bieber is a lot like Harley Davidson. While there are a lot of serious HD owners the fact of the matter is that HD makes more money from their line of trinkets associated with the brand. For every album sale and concert ticket sold Bieber likely makes tons more from other junk.

    16. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Never heard of Magnus Carlsen before today, likely because he isn't shoved in my face every day, and wasn't recently caught drunk driving. Comparing anyone to Bieber is quite an insult I'd say.

    17. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by top_down · · Score: 1

      Aronian is doing a massive jump these days due to Tata Steel.

      Huh? How does a company make the guy better at chess?

      Van Wely thought it made no sense either and beat Aronian today. Goodbye massive jump.

      --
      Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
    18. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by dcw3 · · Score: 1

      Bieber is famous for singing. Ok, so I don't particularly enjoy his music, but his fame is at least based on a talent - as opposed to people like Paris Hilton, or Kim Kardashion, who never really showed any particular talent, except for self-promotion.

      Yes, never underestimate the ability of 12 yr. old girls in their ability to identify singing talent.

      But seriously, I'd argue that it's all about good marketing, and good hair/looks, and an very minute amount of talent.

      --
      Just another day in Paradise
    19. Re:"The Justin Bieber of chess" ?! by Kielistic · · Score: 1

      Bieber has no real virtues over others you would call his "peers". He's not more talented and he's not better looking. He won the fame lottery and capitalised on it.

      Carlsen got to where he is by beating his peers. That is why people here respect him more.

  15. News? by rossdee · · Score: 1

    Not
    and also not stuff that matters

    Anyway you don't measure the length of a chess game by time, you measure it by the number of moves

    1. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Melt all the pieces. Mate in one.

  16. He was only whipped? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'd like to live just long enough to be there when they cut off the head of Bill Gates and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some software comes with too high a price. I would look up into his lifeless eyes and wave, like this. Can you and your Utilities arrange that for me, Mr Norton?

  17. This just in.... by ConallB · · Score: 0

    Guy who is really good at chess beats guy who is really smart with computers at chess....

    Next up...

    Heart surgeon manages to successfully repair heart problem as opposed to computer expert who lets patient die.

    --
    Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum sonatur.
    1. Re:This just in.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You mean you can't just reboot a patient? Well, fuck me, it works with robots.

  18. Not much of a story ... by giorgist · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Bill Gates is not a polymath, I am sure he is no longer competitive in coding, let alone most tasks requiring intellect only because you need to have the knowledge, the talent and the intellect. Hi might have the second and he probably has the third but he can't make up for the first.

  19. Annotated game record by igomaniac · · Score: 4, Informative

    An annotated game record is available here:

    http://en.chessbase.com/post/carlsen-mates-bill-gates-in-79-seconds

    --

    The interactive way to Go -- http://www.playgo.to/iwtg/en/
    1. Re: Annotated game record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He totally overlooked that mate lol

    2. Re:Annotated game record by Bomarc · · Score: 1

      Mr. Gates did three week... well, one week and two bad moves.
      6.0-0 - This move was done WAY to early. For one to castle is (usually) a passive move, which allows your opponent to gain an extra move
      8.hxg4 - This is a clear mistake. This opens his right side rank for the queen to enter
      9.Kxe5?? - This was the final nail.

      IMHO, if Bill hadn't have ... panicked, Carlsen left his King wide open. Also in this game, I noticed that Carlsen seem to oppressive to Bill. Responding to Bill's moves before Bill could even hit the clock.

      What if Bill moved the following options:
      8. B d3 to e4
      - or -
      8. Q d1 to e2

      Thoughts... comments - other than Bill was destined to loose as he was playing the Chess Champion -- Mr. Gates quote: "The outcome is a foregone conclusion, responded Gates. ?

    3. Re:Annotated game record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thoughts... comments

      "WAY to early" - you really want to use "too" here instead.

      "seem to oppressive" - should be "seemed too oppressive"

      "Bill was destined to loose" - should be "lose"

      Your next move: "I'm not a native English speaker"

    4. Re:Annotated game record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      a) This is a bit snarky and I shouldn't have posted it.

      b) You really need to use "weak" instead of "week" (for "not strong").

    5. Re:Annotated game record by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      Just from casually watching the game in the video, I came to the conclusion that Gates really didn't play chess much ever. If I didn't know better I'd say his only goal was to castle.

      I'm not at all a great chess player, I've just played a little off and on. But even I noticed the glaring terribleness of most of his moves, except perhaps the first one...

      Some people said he was just not trying very hard so as to optimize time. But you could have the same effect without looking like a complete Chess Chump.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    6. Re:Annotated game record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Magnus choose a very aggressive reply with it's second move ...d5
      Very good tactical choice when you deal with amateur player as there is a lot a trouble incoming for both side.
      M. Gates answer is considered unusual which tend to prove that it did not know this opening.

    7. Re:Annotated game record by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He took 1 week for a move in a game that lasted 71 seconds? Impressive!

  20. Carlsen won in 11 sec. It's lightning chess. by bAdministrator · · Score: 1

    Not sure if the video plays outside of Norway:
    http://tv.nrk.no/serie/skavlan...

    It's about at 54 min. in.

    Facts:
    - Carlsen was given 30 sec to win.
    - Gates humbly said he had a 1600 rating vs someone with 2000 etc.
    - Gates was actually a sponsor of Carlsen at the start.
    - Carlsen said he violated one of his principles by using a cheap trick to win.

  21. Forget chess for a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Someone pleaze give this kid some computers with free software problems. Let him solve *real* problems with real-world
    implications for a change.

    Hurry, before the NSA-people pulls up a van.

    1. Re:Forget chess for a moment by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, then we can finally have a GCC that's faster than Clang!

  22. post should mention it's a timed game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with a total of 2 1/2 minutes on both clocks.

    1. Re:post should mention it's a timed game by fisted · · Score: 1

      That's not even true, according to TFA Gates had 2 minutes of time per move, while the kid had 30 secs per move.
      Also, I don't like Gates, but he didn't play bad (except the obvious mistake at the end which led to surprise checkmate)

    2. Re:post should mention it's a timed game by Your.Master · · Score: 1

      When I read other articles it looks like Gates had 2 minutes total, not per move, which is more conventional for a chess game. The article writer may have been confused.

    3. Re:post should mention it's a timed game by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      The clock started out with 30s vs 120s, and it continuously counted down for the active side. I don't know at what point more time would have been given, but it was obviously speed chess. Carlson used half of his time to even win in 9 moves.

    4. Re:post should mention it's a timed game by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's not even true, according to TFA Gates had 2 minutes of time per move, while the kid had 30 secs per move.
      Also, I don't like Gates, but he didn't play bad (except the obvious mistake at the end which led to surprise checkmate)

      Yes he did play horribly. Bill lost at 3.d3, that is not an opening, it's a loss.

  23. Reminds me by dtml-try+MyNick · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reminds me of an old saying:

    Every person you meet is always better at something then you are...

    --
    Life starts at the end of your comfort zone.
    1. Re:Reminds me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shake shake shake, shake shake shake
      Shake your booty, shake your booty
      Oh, shake shake shake, shake shake shake
      Shake your booty, shake your booty

      Aah, You can, you can do it
      Very well
      You're the best in the world
      I can tell

    2. Re:Reminds me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reminds me of an old saying:

      Every person you meet is always better at something then you are...

      So true. This person is better at spelling than you are. Next person !

  24. Dumb moves by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    Reading the annotated game, Bill not only had white, but got one ? move and another ?? move. A ? is a blunder and ?? is a really stupid blunder. The ?? move lost him the game. The other player even sacrificed one of his bishops which put the convicted monopolist up on material. He still should have lost, but BG screwed up royally. Can't blame him for being mediocre at chess, though, because that has been regarded for centuries as a good thing.

    "[Chess] is certainly a pleasing and ingenious amusement, but it seems to have one defect, which is that it is possible to have too much knowledge of it, so that whoever would excel in the game must give a great deal of time to it, as I believe, and as much study as if he would learn some noble science or perform well anything of importance; and yet in the end, for all his pains, he only knows how to play a game. Thus, I think a very unusual thing happens in this, namely that mediocrity is more to be praised than excellence."
    -- Castiglione, The Book of the Courtier, 1528, Book II para. 31, Singleton translation

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    1. Re:Dumb moves by ninjabus · · Score: 1

      I'm confused why Gate's final move is listed as a ?? blunder. I can't find any move on that turn which avoids checkmate.

    2. Re:Dumb moves by ninjabus · · Score: 1

      I course, I pose and then immediately see rook e5.

  25. Microwave induces more entropy in cup of water by Burz · · Score: 1

    ...than a chess game with Bill Gates, as even a Microsoft Surface tablet will behave in a wildly different manner between the two:

    * Surface placed in front of Bill Gates and switched on = Very low levels of molecular, audio and visual excitation

    * Microwave loaded with a Surface and switched on = Very high excitation and dynamic visual displays

  26. Not a 4 move checkmate by Trax3001BBS · · Score: 1

    but all of the pieces required were in play - both play horses, hate those people!!!
    Can take them just takes longer.

    Bill Gates is impressive steal code or whatever he did it. but Chess isn't his game. Leading with a knight sigh was after a quick win but
    prevented all his other pieces from moving; able to castle, had em on the run from the start. kinda think e castled to show he knew a bit about chess.

  27. How many Libraries of Congress is that? by J'raxis · · Score: 4, Funny

    Regardless, it took 23-year-old Magnus Carlsen, a "grandmaster" Chess player since the age of 13 and new world Chess champion, just 71 seconds to defeat Gates in a friendly game of Chess on a Norwegian television show. It takes longer to heat up a cup of water in the microwave.

    Thanks for that helpful comparison---without it, I would have had no clue how long 71 seconds actually is.

    1. Re:How many Libraries of Congress is that? by VortexCortex · · Score: 2

      Thanks for that helpful comparison---without it, I would have had no clue how long 71 seconds actually is.

      Really? I didn't find it helpful at all. I had to look it up myself. 71 seconds is about 81.5 miles (~ 131.3 km) long. Given approximately 69 miles (or 111 km) per degree of longitude or latitude (longitudinal degrees vary widely, covering less distance approaching the poles).

      I'm still confused about their thermal coefficient as related the distance or how exactly that relates to 8oz of water microwaved -- Seems it would depend on at least the pressure, starting temperature, destination temperature, and the types of surfaces experiencing the friction (assuming unlubricated seconds).

      Oh my, would you just look at the time? I'd rather not lose my place, thanks.

    2. Re:How many Libraries of Congress is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I tried the 8oz of water in the microwave, but after 71 seconds half of it was vaporized. Maybe Bill's problem is that he's still using his 1970's Radarange. There's actually some really good microwave ovens available these days, if you avoid the cheap crap.

    3. Re:How many Libraries of Congress is that? by treeves · · Score: 1

      actually, a microwave oven will heat up a cup of water in one second. Just not very much.

      --
      ...the future crusty old bastards are already drinking the Kool-Aid.
    4. Re:How many Libraries of Congress is that? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hate to break it to you, but you did your calculation based on minutes, not seconds. 71 seconds is just a little over a mile.

      The Nautical mile used to be defined as 1 minute of latitude, and a Nautical mile is just a little longer than a standard mile.

    5. Re:How many Libraries of Congress is that? by multi+io · · Score: 1

      Regardless, it took 23-year-old Magnus Carlsen, a "grandmaster" Chess player since the age of 13 and new world Chess champion, just 71 seconds to defeat Gates in a friendly game of Chess on a Norwegian television show. It takes longer to heat up a cup of water in the microwave.

      Thanks for that helpful comparison---without it, I would have had no clue how long 71 seconds actually is.

      Can't you convert it into football fields first?

  28. Re:Chess? by lxs · · Score: 1

    The chess franchise is still very successful, but I lost interest after ChessVII - Pawn's Castle. Lame story, too many quicktime events.

  29. 71 seconds? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of shit microwave are you using?

    1. Re:71 seconds? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      My ancient Sharp microwave takes 4 minutes to heat a cup of water.

  30. Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by stevegee58 · · Score: 1

    I don't think so. Sure, he's a smart guy, but 99.999% of his success came from being at the right place at the right time.
    i.e. writing DOS just as IBM entered the PC market. The rest is history.

    1. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't think so. Sure, he's a smart guy, but 99.999% of his success came from being at the right place at the right time.

      i.e. writing DOS just as IBM entered the PC market. The rest is history.

      Being at the right place at the right time and take advantage of it is not obvious.
      In hindsight everything is 20/20 but at the time ?

    2. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by qubezz · · Score: 1

      They bought MS-DOS and re-sold it to IBM, six years after being in business. Their main product, which Gates wrote and was incredibly involved with, was Basic. They started in the right place, by moving to Albuquerque where the 1975 Altair was made and putting their Basic on it, along with every other microcomputer for a decade. He is a smart person and master code monkey; maybe the next challenge in Gates vs Magnus Carlsen will be an 8086 assembly coding competition.

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

    3. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i.e. writing DOS just as IBM entered the PC market. The rest is history.

      You don't seem to know the history: he bought QDOS (Quick & Dirty Operating System, renamed to 86-DOS) which was writen by Tim Paterson from SCP (Seattle Computer Products) and renamed it to PC-DOS/MS-DOS.

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

    4. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by gweihir · · Score: 1

      Gates gates did not write DOS in any real sense. He does not have the skills for that. He bought it and did some minimal adaption. And everybody that worked with DOS knows how truly bad it was compared to the alternatives. And how minimally incremented in capabilities each release because of the unmitigated greed of Gates. It was basically a minimal embedded program loader and could do nothing well.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    5. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by westlake · · Score: 1

      I don't think so. Sure, he's a smart guy, but 99.999% of his success came from being at the right place at the right time.
      i.e. writing DOS just as IBM entered the PC market. The rest is history.

      Being at the right place at the right time isn't an accident.

      MBASIC was the first program for the infant microcomputer market to generate the kind of sales and profit to be had in the mini and mainframe markets. In 1980, Microsoft had a full suite of well-regarded development tools for CP/M. It was not an unknown to IBM or to anyone else in the business.

    6. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by Arker · · Score: 1

      Eh, as others have pointed out already, he didnt write DOS. Not at all. He bought it from Patterson who 'adapted' it from his copy of CP/M, so Gary Killdall would be the original author. I do not believe Gates has ever claimed authorship of DOS. He does claim partial authorship of the original MS Basic, which was ported to several microcomputers and very popular, but IIRC he isnt really the original author on that either, he just polished a printout he retrieved from a dumpster.

      It wasnt just that he was at the right place at the right time, it was also that he combined a high IQ and geekishness with a profound enough lack of morality to succeed in business.

      --
      =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
      Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
    7. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by VortexCortex · · Score: 1

      Yep. It's the MBA equivalent of the Anthropic Principal.

    8. Re:Bill Gates? Brilliant mind? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bill Gates was known by one lady working at IBM who then suggested IBM to turn to Microsoft for OS. IBM didn't come to meet Bill Gates because he was successful or good at anything, only because he was mentioned by IBM worker.

      And Microsoft did not buy MS-DOS and re-sold it to IBM.
      Microsoft first licensed a operating system to IBM, then they went and they bought QDOS as they needed one and Steve (other Steve) knew someone doing OS and they managed to buy it and rebrand it and then license it to IBM (IBM did not buy PC-DOS, they only licensed it and allowed Microsoft to license it to others under other names).

      Bill Gates just happen to be mentioned once what was reason why IBM knocked their door in first place (like God would knock your door) and then they went to meet other OS company what turned IBM away because he didn't want to sign IBM NDA before meeting.
      So Bill Gates were given TWO great changes (first one he blowed) and neither one were because what he had done but because someone recommended him.

  31. Re:Gates is an idiot, and hates white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The amusing thing is that you think your DNA is better than *anybody's*. You are a stupid cunt, and white as hell. Funny that

  32. brilliant mind? right place time? dark matters IV by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    like the john gotti of the softwar liesense scams

  33. So glad they told me how long 71 seconds was... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... with their STUPID example of a cup of water in a microwave. I'm always heating up cups of water in microwaves.

    What idiot wrote the summary?

    1. Re:So glad they told me how long 71 seconds was... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      An idiot that also does not understand chess one bit....

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  34. Game on chessgames.com by L.+J.+Beauregard · · Score: 1

    Game on chessgames.com.

    1. e4 Nc6 2. Nf3 is unusual but not crazy.

    2. ... d4 seems suitably aggressive; the black queen backs her pawn up, the white king can't.

    3. Bd3? Gates is trying to protect his pawn (and preparing to castle), but ends up blocking in his black bishop; better is 3. d3.

    3. ... Nf6

    4. exd5? Qxd5 lets the black queen out of her hidey-hole.

    5. Nc3 Qh5 White tries to play queen-be-gone, but the queen is happy to be on her way.

    6. 0-0? Dude, with the queen sitting on h5? 6. ... Bg4 after the knight on f3.

    7. h3 trying bishop-be-gone; perhaps White should have played this instead of castling. 7. ... Ne5 again contending for f3.

    8. hxg4 Nfxg4 aiming for h2 while keeping an attack on f3.
    The only thing that saves White at this point is 9. Re1 giving the king an escape route and developing the rook. Anything else and, at best, 9. ... Nxf3+ 10. Qxf3 or gxf3 Qh2#. But White played about the worst move he could have made:

    9. Nxe5?? Qh2#.

    --
    Ooh, moderator points! Five more idjits go to Minus One Hell!
    Delendae sunt RIAA, MPAA et Windoze
    1. Re:Game on chessgames.com by frank-the-fake · · Score: 1

      The only thing that saves White at this point is 9. Re1 giving the king an escape route and developing the rook..

      Surprisingly 9 Re1 actually wins white a piece

    2. Re:Game on chessgames.com by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Carlsen was obviously going for a quick kill, getting his queen into play early which would never make sense in a tournament.

      My takeaway is that if you're playing one of these grandmasters in a show game, go for an early exchange of queens. He'll probably pull it back, but you can make him dance around.

    3. Re:Game on chessgames.com by dcollins117 · · Score: 2

      My takeaway is that if you're playing one of these grandmasters in a show game, go for an early exchange of queens. He'll probably pull it back, but you can make him dance around.

      I don't thk so. A GM can happily play without a queen, meanwhile you've lost your best piece.

      I'm not being snarky here, I've played against GMs and had my ass handed to me each and every time. So I speak with authority :)

  35. Re:Bill Gates is stupid by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    I'm not Bill, but I accept the challenge. :D

    I would write a flood fill function like this: take a starting point (from a mouse click, for example). Expand recursively in all directions (pass the image data as a pointer to the children, also pass the color of the starting point pixel) but do not expand if the color is different than the starting point pixel. In every iteration, change the color of the current pixel to the one which we have selected from the palette.

  36. He didn't lose. by Etherwalk · · Score: 1

    He didn't lose--presumably they both won, just different things. The result was a foregone conclusion, so Gates would not have agreed if he hadn't gotten something else out of it. He presumably accomplished his goal.

  37. Oh, wow, really? by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Guy who is really really good at chess beats quite smart guy of unknown chess-playing ability at chess.

    This is news?

    Regardless, it took 23-year-old Magnus Carlsen, a "grandmaster" Chess player since the age of 13 and new world Chess champion, just 71 seconds to defeat Gates in a friendly game of Chess

    What do you mean, "regardless"? There's no "regardless" about it. It's like comparing a guy who won a gajillion dollars on a scratchcard to Warren Buffett (except for the fact that you could never get richer than Warren Buffett with any scratchcard). There is no comparison.

    Or are we really now meant to re-appraise Bill Gates's intelligence and business acumen in light of this spectacular failure to hold out against a chess grandmaster?

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:Oh, wow, really? by TheGratefulNet · · Score: 1

      Guy who is really really good at chess beats quite smart guy of unknown chess-playing ability at chess.

      This is news?

      its like asking, "who could make a better burrito: jesus or batman?"

      some 'contests' are just stupid.

      --

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
    2. Re:Oh, wow, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      who could make a better burrito: jesus or batman?

      In a burrito content, I'm betting on the dude with the Mexican name.

    3. Re:Oh, wow, really? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      What do you mean, "regardless"? There's no "regardless" about it. It's like comparing a guy who won a gajillion dollars on a scratchcard to Warren Buffett (except for the fact that you could never get richer than Warren Buffett with any scratchcard). There is no comparison.

      And thank you for proving the point of the "regardless". Even in your own mindset, you feel compelled to mention money as some sort of comparison as if money == aptitude, no matter how much you discount the comparison.

      Or are we really now meant to re-appraise Bill Gates's intelligence and business acumen in light of this spectacular failure to hold out against a chess grandmaster?

      Yes, we are. Because Bill Gates being good at making Microsoft or being a billionaire means nothing in light of chess, general strategy, curing malaria, etc. Sure, he might be good at some of those latter things, but the whole point is that way too many people do associate money with ability in a lot of areas it has nothing to do with it and its that large sum of money which is used as a basis to pay any attention to Bill Gates or ilk beyond how, you know, they're spending that money or doing whatever actually business they do and how that business will effect people.

      Ie, it's appropriate to issue some humble pie not on Bill Gates--well, not necessarily, since he does come across as a general egomaniac although he's mellowed a lot--, but on everyone to really appreciate the situation.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
    4. Re:Oh, wow, really? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about in a contest?

  38. Specialization, basis for civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure I can whip out someone's appendix faster than Mr. Gates or the chess grand-master could. I don't really understand how this is supposed to prove anything though.

    1. Re:Specialization, basis for civilization by rossdee · · Score: 1

      Could you do it in 71 swconds though?

      (and have the patient live afterward)

    2. Re:Specialization, basis for civilization by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you are a surgeon, I am willing to bet that I can whip out someone's appendix faster than you can. Becuase presumably you are obligated by the hypocratic oath to not just plunge a butcher knife in and wrench out the entrails. And for the record, I this this does does prove something (but I don't know what it is)

  39. Link with video and moves by daffmeister · · Score: 1

    http://en.chessbase.com/post/c...

    If nine moves is in the TL;DR range for you, it was a bishop sacrifice to open up the h-file for a queen and knight attack. Poor Bill missed a mate in one, but I suspect most would do the same under those conditions.

  40. chess? by stenvar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Chess is a very specialized skill, unrelated to pretty much everything that matters in life. Yeah, it's not surprising that an expert level chess player can win against a business tycoon. He'd probably also win against a Nobel prize winner or mathematician.

  41. 71 vs 79 seconds by O('_')O_Bush · · Score: 1

    This article claims he was beaten in 71 seconds, while most sources claim 79 seconds. Who is correct and why is there a discrepancy?

    --
    while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
    1. Re:71 vs 79 seconds by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Carlsen started with 30 seconds on the clock and finished with 18. Gates started when 120 and finished with 70. So 71 seconds would be by the chess clock. However, Gates made his first move without starting the clock, and Carlsen didn't seem entirely sure that it had started; the time from Gates making his first move to the checkmate is actually 86 seconds. I'm not sure where 79 seconds comes from.

    2. Re:71 vs 79 seconds by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Gates made his move without starting the clock and then they sat around chatting for a while before Magnus started the clock.

    3. Re:71 vs 79 seconds by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      Carlsen didn't seem entirely sure that it had started

      This is normal: when you start the clock, there is no visual indicator until 1 second has passed, and the time ticks down to the next second. So there is that short period where you aren't sure if your press registered or not.

    4. Re:71 vs 79 seconds by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This was done in Norway where they use the metric system and journalists are not good with conversions.

    5. Re:71 vs 79 seconds by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Oops, I left an ambiguous anaphor. Carlsen didn't seem entirely sure that the game had started. The clock hadn't, because no-one had touched it.

  42. let's hear it for magnus! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Magnus! Hoorah! Good to see Norwegians in the news.

  43. Barf by markdavis · · Score: 1, Insightful

    >"There's no disputing that Bill Gates is blessed with a brilliant mind."

    I think I shall barf now.

    1. Re:Barf by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      More brilliant than yours, neckbeard.
       
      Now go deliver some pizzas, fucktard.

    2. Re:Barf by markdavis · · Score: 1

      Speaking of barf.. looks like more is needed.

  44. "Brilliant"? Not from the samples I have seen... by gweihir · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    More like "ruthless", "greedy", and "does not care how much damage he does as long as he profits". Also surprising incompetent with regard to technology. This person will go down in history as the reason the computer revolution was delayed by a few decades, because he managed to push his sub-standard technology into the market in a small window of opportunity.

    As to the grand-master though, any grand-master will wipe the flow with anybody who is not, genius does not play a role here.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  45. Re:gates by fisted · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates is meant [] to be intelligent[]? I can think of several things that his history would tend to show of himself (???) and intelligence is not one of them.

    House of glass, meet rock.

  46. Re:Bill Gates is stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The kid was stupid. Think of the sponsorship he could have picked up if he (cleverly) maneuvered the game so that Gates won.

  47. And another thing by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

    I bet Magnus Carlsen can give himself a haircut faster than Bill Gates.

  48. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  49. I'm a little surprised by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

    All Gates-bashing aside, I'm a little surprised that the win was so fast. I once played chess against a much better player at a Renaissance fair. He was playing many people at once. He didn't cream me (or anyone else around the table) instantly. Instead, I think he played the same sort of strong, deliberate chess game that he would have played against a better player. Basically, he systematically built up a stronger position until I was so overpowered that he could force checkmate. Though I never stood a chance, it took him awhile to do the deed.

    From that angle, in the "71 seconds" scenario, we can assume that either Gates is an extremely poor chess player, he let the kid win in 71 seconds, or maybe he just fell into some sort of textbook trap that Carlsen knew. But since Gates is an accomplished bridge player and seems to have been an effective strategist at Microsoft (it ain't easy to put together a monopoly), he's probably not an extremely poor chess player.

    Or, maybe the guy at the Renaissance fair was just taking it easy on me (us) to make it more fun.

    1. Re:I'm a little surprised by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      Blitz chess. There were only 150 seconds on the clock in total when the game started. But reporters either don't bother learning enough about their subject to communicate it, or prefer to misrepresent it.

    2. Re:I'm a little surprised by godrik · · Score: 1

      I know a couple professional chess players. Against somebody that do not play often, it typically does not take them ANY TIME to think, the time they take to play, is exactly the time it takes to move the piece from one square to the other.

      What is more surpising is that it took only 9 moves. That means you do not know how to defend, which is not surprising since gates is probably not much of a chess player.

    3. Re:I'm a little surprised by TheloniousToady · · Score: 1

      FWIW, in my story, by "time", I really meant "moves". As for literal time, the guy was playing multiple games at the same time, and he didn't always move instantly. He probably divided his time among the number of players just to make it all fit together. I don't remember him ever just standing around with nothing to do, though maybe he could have done that and still beat all of us.

  50. This is the stupidest thread ever. by Slartibartfast · · Score: 1

    Have you ever played a grandmaster? I imagine Bill Gates and I are probably on par, chess-wise. As an anecdote, I won my town's chess championship at the age of 15. (Population: 10K.) I'm not USCF rated, though I've considered it, and I generally run roughshod over my friends.

    My grandfather was a grandmaster. Until his faculties started to fail him, I *never* beat him. And we played regularly. I always seemed to be a move behind, no matter who started. It was this vice that just closed in. And if we played quickly, well, it just happened that much the faster.

  51. Beowulf cluster of Magnus Carlsens? by tomhath · · Score: 1

    The original Beowulf was set in Scandinavia, so maybe.

    Perhaps next week we'll find out how long Gates can go against a professional Sumo wrestler. Or maybe not, I really don't want to see him wearing a loincloth.

  52. Re:Gates is an idiot, and hates white people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    +1 for truth, that most are too scared to utter or too stupid to notice

  53. O/T but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How did you post a link that wasn't chopped off with dots...?

  54. Wrong game by JazzHarper · · Score: 1

    Beat Gates and Osberg at duplicate bridge and you'll have something to talk about.

  55. Re:"Brilliant"? Not from the samples I have seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Indeed. The only thing Gates is "brilliant" at is ripping off his business partners and using their creations to cheat his customers.

  56. point being? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    what the fuck is the point of this news?

  57. agreed by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    pretty sure that a lot of people includign martial arts specialists, surgeons, hell, plubmers and brick layers can do things quicker or better than Mr Gates. So what?

  58. $$ Bill Gates picking up his wallet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Bill Gates strategy was based on a simple calculation ... time is money.

  59. Different types of genius by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geniuses come in various shades. Just as Bill Gates probably wouldn't be a chess grandmaster in his lifetime, it is unlikely that Carlsen would go on to found the next Microsoft.

  60. Was it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Fool's Mate?

  61. Weird play by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    In a match against an overwhelmingly better opponent your only chance is to throw him off balance. Play by the books and you surely get wiped out, but throw in a random move, a strange gambit, and maybe, just maybe the grandmaster will get confused. You still haven't got a real chance as he will get you in the end game anyway, but that is understood.

  62. True by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But sometimes the person you meet is only extremely adept at braiding donkey tails, and there isn't much demand for it, these days. A fact I regret deeply, I might add, as it is about the only skill I really have.

  63. Brilliant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Sure, he dropped out of Harvard College, but he got accepted into the elite institution of higher learning in the first place."

    Not that Gates isn't brilliant, but being brilliant is only required to get into Harvard when you aren't rich.

  64. Tennis next? by houghi · · Score: 1

    Will he win or loose against Serena Williams? I mean, come on, she is a woman. Or drive faster in a rally then Juha Kankkunen, Tommi MÃkinen or even Marcus GrÃnholm? That should be easy. They are Finnish.
    We already know no Fin could make a better OS then Bill Ga...oh ... !

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  65. Gates was lucky, not smart. by jhy001 · · Score: 1

    IBM slipped up and let Gates keep rights to DOS. This unexpectedly made him a billionaire. Not his smarts. Being a billionaire he was able to keep a crappy company afloat with predatory tactics. The first edition of The Road Ahead hardly mentioned the Internet. When others were already well on their way with it. A year later, he finally caught on, and in the paperback edition there were, as I recall, three chapters on the Internet. A leader? No! In my following of Microsoft, they have stolen or bought up every important new product, and usually make a mess of it until the N-teenth version. Bill Gates a visionary? I laugh every time I heat that. When he makes predictions I turn the page or turn the channel. Nothing interesting to read or hear.

    1. Re:Gates was lucky, not smart. by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      Yeah sounds like a total dumbass here http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/B...

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  66. Re:chess? by johnrpenner · · Score: 2

    you are right that it is unsurprising — as is the result of a game between a tennis champ and an amateur — but you are wrong in saying that the skills one squires in chess are unrelated to everything that matters in life.

    you obviously have never taken up the sport, or you would soon see how it disciplines and trains the mind to meet everything else in life with more and better discrimination — just like science enables one to cut out a lot of the crap that people superstitiously believe — chess teaches your mind how to think clearly in a better way than anything else. it shows you how to overcome superstitious instincts, and train them towards better results — and this helps in almost every area of life.

    As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1750 in his article, The Morals of Chess — The Game of Chess is not merely an idle amusement; several very valuable qualities of mind, useful in the course of human life, are to be acquired and strengthened by it, so as to become habits ready on all occasions; for life is a kind of Chess... By playing at Chess then, we may learn:

    1st, Foresight, which looks a little into futurity, and considers the consequences that may attend an action.

    2nd, Circumspection, which surveys the whole Chess-board, or scene of action—the relation of the several pieces and their situations...

    3rd, Caution, not to make our moves too hastily...

    two cents from toronto island
    j

  67. Good for Magnus. But my question is.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does it run a beowulf cluster of these, in Soviet Russia where it is the year of Linux Desktop?

  68. Argument on Wikipedia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know what will be the worst thing to come out of this? Whether this game merits an individual article on Wikipedia.

    Sigh.

  69. Oh please by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    I don't see you contributing anything useful. Can you elaborate on what was held back during these decades? Graphical interfaces? TCP/IP? Filesystems? Talk about armchair history buffs.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Oh please by gweihir · · Score: 1

      You have a fixed opinion already. Talking to you is a waste of time.

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    2. Re:Oh please by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

      In other words you are spouting bullshit and don't know. Let me guess, you were born in 1992?

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
  70. Re:chess? by stenvar · · Score: 1

    you obviously have never taken up the sport, or you would soon see how it disciplines and trains the mind to meet everything else in life with more and better discrimination

    I played chess in high school, and reasonably well, mostly because I believed such crap. I play Go now, because I think it's a more interesting game. I still don't kid myself about either game having any other benefit than enjoyment.

    As Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1750 in his article, The Morals of Chess

    Oh, well, that settles it! Throw decades of psychological research out the window because Franklin stated an uninformed opinion in 1750.

  71. A lesson in Opportunity Cost. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So now we know the opportunity cost of becoming the world's top Chess Grand Master is $76 billion.

  72. This just in... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basketball superstar trounces Olympian who's never played basketball competitively.

    I'm pretty sure Bill could trounce this kid when it comes to making business decisions, and probably even when it comes to programming something (though I doubt Bill's kept up to date or even programmed much over the years).

    The only story here is that Chess is now game where the 1% are so good the rest of us don't have a snowball's chance in hell of attaining their level. Much like Olympians, or any other specialist who's been training in another field for their entire lives.

    If anything I applaud Bill for being willing to take a pummeling he knew was coming, even if he had nothing to lose but dignity.

  73. Plilanthropic, my ass by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Calling Bill Gates a philanthropist makes me laugh. It seems to be that he invests in the next cash cows, namely online education (a.k.a. replacing qualified professors with computer programs), healthcare, and GMOs...

  74. Much of his life by srobert · · Score: 2

    Much of his 23 year long life. Still couldn't have been very long. I've spent more time taking a crap than he's been alive.

    1. Re:Much of his life by Valdrax · · Score: 1

      Either you fail at fractions, or I should either envy your longevity or pity your unimaginable gastric issues. Maybe both.

      --
      If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
  75. Pretty meaningless by Kimomaru · · Score: 2

    I guess being good at chess isn't an indication of anything when it comes to real life. For all its relevance, they may as well have played tiddlywinks. I appreciate chess myself, but I have to laugh when people crow about how good they are. You beat Bill Gates. Great. Go build an empire now.

  76. Re:"Brilliant"? Not from the samples I have seen.. by westlake · · Score: 1

    This person will go down in history as the reason the computer revolution was delayed by a few decades, because he managed to push his sub-standard technology into the market in a small window of opportunity.

    Microsoft cast a huge shadow across the eight-bit world. The 16 bit CP/M clone was the obvious migration path for small business ---- and there was never the slightest doubt that the new IBM micro would ship with a full suite of development tools from Microsoft.

    Digital Research threatened legal action, claiming PC DOS/MS-DOS to be too similar to CP/M. IBM settled by agreeing to sell their x86 version of CP/M, CP/M-86, alongside PC DOS. However, PC DOS sold for $40, while CP/M-86 had a $240 price tag. The proportion of PC buyers prepared to spend six times as much to buy CP/M-86 was very small.

    DR-DOS

    Gate's negotiation of a non-exclusive license for MSDOS was a stroke of brilliance. There were commercially viable MSDOS PCs on the market before the cloning of the IBM PC BIOS.

    Digital Research would not have a plausible mass market alternative to MSDOS until the release of DR-DOS in 1988.

    The Macintosh 128K was released in 1884.

    $2500, $5439, adjusted for inflation.

    Integrated 9 inch monochrome screen with a resolution of 512x342 pixels, No arrow keys, keypad or function keys. The GUI a resource hog.

    The Mac would find success in niche markets, desktop publishing perhaps must visibly. But it was not, in the eighties, and beyond, positioned to challenge Microsoft on all fronts.

    So much for the geek's "small window" of opportunity --- as open as eight lanes of expressway traffic at three a.m. in the morning would be closer to the truth.

  77. Re:"Brilliant"? Not from the samples I have seen.. by elashish14 · · Score: 1

    The first two-thirds of the summary lauds Bill Gates like a propaganda piece about the dictator of North Korea. This whole place has become sickeningly MS-friendly ever since Dice took over.

    Great one guys.

    --
    I have left slashdot and am now on Soylent News. FUCK YOU DICE.
  78. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should have gotten the real brains at Microsoft to play him and the result would have been completely different. Ballmer would have done Microsoft proud, jumping up, yelling "GRAND-MASTERS GRAND-MASTERS....", picking up his chair, and koshing him on the head with it. I believe they call it "The West Coast Defense" in chess and police circles, originally used on film when one unsuspecting victim of the defense proclaimed "Rodney King, me!"

    The rest is chess history.

  79. What does that have to do with the price of tea in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your chess skill has nothing to do with intelligence. He is a chess master. If gates was smarter would it have taken 81 seconds?
    Gates winning would have been news.

  80. Re:"Brilliant"? Not from the samples I have seen.. by gweihir · · Score: 1

    Nonsense. Talk about revisionist history.

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
  81. There's no disputing that Bill Gates is blessed?!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "There's no disputing that Bill Gates is blessed with a brilliant mind"

    Uhmm, yes there is? WTF did this guy ever do except be in the right place at the right time?
    If anything, his only accomplishment was having enough sense to capitalize on an opportunity
    put in front of him on a silver platter. And he only had to steal^H^H^H^H violate the licence
    of someone else's work to do it.

  82. Re:"Brilliant"? Not from the samples I have seen.. by DanaJ · · Score: 1

    That's the old testament Bill Gates. He's New Testament Bill now: more love, less smiting. On topic: Sounds like fun for a talk show, but no surprise.

  83. Same approach Gates took to business? by presidenteloco · · Score: 0

    Except for the saying sorry part?

    Seriously though, can we please get over this idea that Bill Gates was a computer genius. That's the perspective of non-techies, where basically anyone that understands computers or programming is a genius and can come over and de-louse your PC or get your wi-fi working.

    Gates was/is not a good programmer. I know this because he permitted an egregiously badly designed (non-orthogonal instruction set, perverse memory addressing scheme) chip architecture and operating system (CP/M was much better designed. Unix already existed, pointing the way to generality and cleanliness of design) to be his core offering since day one, and and also because he completely failed to see the import of the world wide web for like at least 3 years after it became well known.

    I know this because permitted horrible usability bugs in his core office software products to exist for decades without, apparently, doing a design or code review. Anyone who understands the utterance: "Crap! My document formatting sproinged again" or "Crap! I dragged the background of my whole diagram out of place again when trying to select that object" knows what I'm talking about. Oh, and free tip: It might be time to fix Excel on Macs so it doesn't save in circa-1995 old MacOSX text file line-ending format. Good programmer with self-respect about software they release? I don't think so.

    Gates was very good at business. Ruthless, and smarter than the average business competitor, both in tactics of competition and about what people want. He knew intuitively that people in the 80s did not want well-designed computers and well-crafted software. They didn't know any of that stuff (the finer distinctions) and he knew it. People just wanted *A* computer (better than no computer) and they wanted it cheap and they needed to have the same software and data formats as everyone else who was using a computer for business or writing things. That's all they thought they needed. That's all he provided. Finer points of quality? Fuggedaboudit.

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
    1. Re:Same approach Gates took to business? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gates was/is not a good programmer. I know this because he permitted an egregiously badly designed (non-orthogonal instruction set, perverse memory addressing scheme) chip architecture and operating system (CP/M was much better designed. Unix already existed, pointing the way to generality and cleanliness of design) to be his core offering since day one,

      Ooooookay, Comic Book Guy. You do know that Gates never had anything to do with these decisions, don't you?

      The IBM PC had a CPU selected by IBM. That decision was set in stone by the time Microsoft got involved.

      DOS resulted from IBM deciding to hire a company other than Digital Research Inc. to supply a low cost clone of DRI's CP/M, mostly because IBM's first interactions with DRI went poorly. One of Gates' influential relatives directed IBM to Microsoft, even though by IBM standards Microsoft was a nonentity that they normally wouldn't deal with. Gates didn't have a CP/M-like OS in hand, and it was an aggressive schedule. But he knew of someone who had written a minor CP/M lookalike OS (QDOS), and he thought he could buy that guy out, so he bluffed and told IBM that Microsoft could do it. He also got IBM to agree that Microsoft retained rights and could independently sell the OS on other companies' computers (which later became the basis of the PC clone industry). They signed the contract, Gates was indeed able to buy QDOS (without telling its author why Microsoft was suddenly interested in it!), Microsoft renamed and ported it to the IBM PC, and the rest is history.

      Key points here: (a) DOS was what IBM wanted to buy, and (b) Gates didn't personally design it, or code it. He was acting as a businessman, not a software engineer.

      (And UNIX? Really? The original 1982 IBM PC wasn't enough computer for that, and IBM wasn't asking Microsoft for a UNIX either.)

      and and also because he completely failed to see the import of the world wide web for like at least 3 years after it became well known.

      This is pretty much the only valid critique of Gates as a technologist (but not as a programmer) that you've given.

      I know this because permitted horrible usability bugs in his core office software products to exist for decades without, apparently, doing a design or code review. Anyone who understands the utterance: "Crap! My document formatting sproinged again" or "Crap! I dragged the background of my whole diagram out of place again when trying to select that object" knows what I'm talking about. Oh, and free tip: It might be time to fix Excel on Macs so it doesn't save in circa-1995 old MacOSX text file line-ending format. Good programmer with self-respect about software they release? I don't think so.

      More shit that Gates didn't write. Look, I'm not going to tell you that Gates was some kind of super genius programmer, and I hates me some Microsoft software too. But everything I've read about Microsoft history suggests that Gates did not write much code for Microsoft past the very earliest days, when they were selling miniscule quantities of BASIC to the very earliest personal computer hobbyists. You want stuff Gates actually touched, those early BASIC interpreters were it.

      He apparently took pride in remaining sharp, starting little coding contests to flex his e-muscles, but it was all stuff on the scale of what he'd started out with, not complex large OOP codebases. And in typical Gates fashion (a nerd overcompensating by turning into a bully), he would be a terror about dressing people down for bad code when problems got kicked up to his level. But he wasn't directly involved in the release process of most Microsoft software to the extent you want to make him out to be. He was the CEO, not a coder, middle management, or even a product manager.

      (You want an example of a famous tech company CEO who stayed much more directly involved in products than Gates? Steve Jobs. Who wasn't much of an engineer either, although he was more of one than most people assume.)

  84. Why Bill Gates lost. by pikine · · Score: 1

    Bill Gates played too conservatively so that he couldn't mobilize his pieces before getting checkmated. It's a common mistake if you care too much about losing pieces (presumably because that might appear embarrassing). I think it's uncharacteristic of Bill actually. He was known to be a lot more aggressive when he was younger, but I have to admit he's a lot more admirable now that he's older and mellowed.

    --
    I once had a signature.
  85. dull by Tom · · Score: 1

    Even though I loathe Gates, this is a cheap shot.

    Ever since computers came into the chess scene, chess has changed a lot, and to be a grandmaster today, you have to basically memorize a ton of openings and typical moves.

    To me (no chess expert at all), the sheer speed of reactions indicates a learned response. Gates was almost certainly playing an opening that Carlsen knew by heart and had memorized half a dozen responses to that he simply unrolled.

    That kind of memory and being able to recognize the patterns, recall the proper evaluation and responses is a massive skill all in itself, but it's not the same kind of mind-beating-mind that you think about when you read the headline.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:dull by bussdriver · · Score: 1

      It's not so simple; they train their brains so intensely that they think IN chess - not visual representations, not words, not even like you might think-- in that they step thru every process they are thinking about and merely are faster than average at that.

      Sure the basics are wrote memory but that comes with that level of experience and the number of memorized sequences between masters them doesn't amount to much (which is why they beat computers for so long which always had the memorization advantage.) You can find info on the study of these peoples' brains and how they work, it is more like learning to ride a bike where you "don't think" when you get skilled. For advanced maneuvers there is still thinking required but it's not on the same level because of all the skill to build upon and the kind of thought process wired into a skilled brain has one thinking "in the language" of the skill just as you can think in english.

      Chess masters can move extremely quickly in their native language while you are stuck thinking in a foreign language. That said, anybody who plays chess a lot is going to become most familiar with the 1st minute of the game - even if you lose all the time, you are likely to experience a few minutes of the game before you lose. So that is going to become the most familiar in addition to being the smallest problem space of the game.

  86. How many moves? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, the metric that is most important is "How many moves?"

    The quickest game is "fools mate" and it is aver in about 4 moves. It also requires that the loser does some real stupid moves.

    If they were playing a version of "Lightning chess" where one has to move almost by instinct, 71 seconds is a rather long game.

    1. Re:How many moves? by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

      The quickest game is "fools mate" and it is aver in about 4 moves.

      1. f3 e5
      2. g4 Qh4 checkmate.

  87. Re:"Brilliant"? Not from the samples I have seen.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > Nonsense. Talk about revisionist history.

    So true. Everybody knows Apple stole their GUI from Xerox PARC, and PARC didn't exist in 1884. Xerox itself wasn't founded until 1906!

  88. Just the facts, please, not assumptions! by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

    "There's no disputing that Bill Gates is blessed with a brilliant mind. Sure, he dropped out of Harvard College, but he got accepted into the elite institution of higher learning in the first place.

    His daddy went to Harvard, he was a legacy applicant, the same way that George Weasel Bush's daddy and granddaddy, etc., went to Yale, he too was a legacy applicant!

    Next, Gates' mommy sat on one or more boards with the CEO of IBM, who gave the sweetest licensing deal ever to her son.

    Billy hired a dood to copy Gary Kildall's CP/M operating system (those of us who remember dissembling the first version of DOS remember Gary's notes still there!!!!), and Micro$oft later settled out of court with the owner to the rights of Kildall's Dr.DOS (to the tune of around $1 billion or more).

    BillyG got his financing for his startup from his uncle, who was VP of First Interstate.

    Let's stick to the facts, please!

  89. Re:chess? by top_down · · Score: 1

    Oh, well, that settles it! Throw decades of psychological research out the window because Franklin stated an uninformed opinion in 1750.

    Which research? You have me interested.

    --
    Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
  90. hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody admires logic superior in the road to success... does it mean what I've thought always ? Does it mean - success is absolutely unrelated to logic ? - YES. IT IS. It is solely a game of luck. Darkest NO-minds luck. Just so stupid that game is. Allmost all winners are those, who introduced new rules in this game, - not those who tried to win it following the rules it had ....

  91. There's no disputing? by nurb432 · · Score: 2

    There's no disputing that Bill Gates is blessed with a brilliant mind.

    Sure there is.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  92. Re:chess? by stenvar · · Score: 1

    Look at the literature. Here is a start:

    http://scholar.google.de/schol...

  93. How suprising! by manu0601 · · Score: 2

    A young chess grandmaster, who has being practicing chess every single day for 10 years, quickly defeats Bill Gates, who is now an old man with little chess experience.

    I wonder why this is a news.

    1. Re:How suprising! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Exactly!

  94. Re:Gates is an idiot, and hates white people by presidenteloco · · Score: 1

    Parents inbreed much in that redneck hick town you're from? Seriously get a life. Or on second thoughts...

     

    --

    Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
  95. When I walk by the gym... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I walk by the gym, I don't challenge people to wrestle and they don't try to impress me with innovative code. What next? A swimming race between Michael Phelps and Yo Yo Ma, followed by a Phelps concert?

  96. Hmm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Described as the Justin Bieber of chess.

    On behalf of all humanity. Go fuck yourself for saying that.

  97. Re:chess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What psychological research do you refer to, you cited none. He gave you three additional examples, none of which you responded to, and you pull this out of your ass?

  98. Thank you! by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 2

    I've been looking for someone to finally make this point.

    Let's also consider that the attack Magnus used on Bill was a class speed chess method. He sacrificed his front row, took a small gamble that Bill would play regular chess and be protective of his front row. As a result, Magnus came out fast and hard with his knights and queen. I have seen this precise game played (move for move) many time growing up by the old jewish men in the park in Brooklyn. In fact, I'm almost sure I played it against other people several times.

    Speed chess is rarely about skill or beauty. It's about patterns. The difference between speed chess and an opening moves book is that the speed chess games build a start to finish tree of possibilities in 10 moves or less.

    Want to talk about impressive? Bill was smart enough (just before moving his bishop in a "protective" measure) to recognize that he'd lost already. Watch the video and you'll see. My wife was laughing because I was telling her the game and how it would be played from the second Bill too Magnus's pawn.

  99. 9. Nxe5? was a blunder by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    5. ... qh5
    This had already positioned queen to attack the white king as soon as it castled. It just needed a backup of any piece(Carlsen tried first bishop then knight). 9 Nxe5 was actually a trap that just took away white knight from defence and the rest was easy.

  100. Re:chess? by top_down · · Score: 1

    I was hoping that you could backup your own claim but it seems you want me to do it for you ;-)

    --
    Anyone who generalizes about slashdotters is a typical slashdotter.
  101. Nothing brilliant about that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "but he got accepted into the elite institution of higher learning in the first place. "

    This is very easy when both your parents are, independently, millionaires and of a family of the elite. Absolutely no intelligence *needed* to get into elite higher learning institutions when your parents families are old money merkins.

    He's not as "dumb as shitbricks" like Shrub, but he's likely no smarter than the top 25% of plebs who never get the breaks he did.

  102. Microwave water? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If you're using a microwave to heat water it's draughts you should be playing and not chess. Buy a kettle :)

  103. Grandmaster? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why is "grandmaster" in quotes?

  104. Harvard elitism? by StoicJim · · Score: 0

    George W. Bush went to Harvard. Where is your elitism now?

  105. Checkmate Bill, sorry dude. by gsgiles · · Score: 0

    I would bet that Gates fell for a suckers move. There are lots of quick checkmates if one player is much better than the other. Besides chess ability has been proven to not be related to IQ. If Gates proved the Riemann hypothesis in an hour I would say yes, he is the greatest genius that ever lived but in the mean time Gates has a few ahead of him: Euclid, Newton, Euler, Riemann, Einstein, and Feynman just for starters.

  106. Re:chess? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He'd probably also win against the second-best chess grandmaster on earth. Otherwise, he wouldn't be rated first, would he?

  107. Reverse it by LaughingVulcan · · Score: 1

    It may have been a *long* time since Bill Gates has coded, but let's see how long it takes Gates and Carlsen to write a reasonably simple subroutine, function, or module. Even in pseudocode, my money would be on Gates. (Though I would be prepared to be surprised.)

  108. 73 Seconds in a Microwave by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hmm! I think that's a hot cup of coffee, but of course that depends on the strength of you're microwave.

  109. Cheating by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    Since Bill Gates is well known for cheating at many things (business partners, court depositions, arrested for habitual speeding etc) it is likely that he cheated on his SAT as well, quite possibly with the aid of family money. 99% seems a rather unlikely result for somebody who was dumb enough to fail to notice the rise of the internet and, let Steve Ballmer run Microsoft, and bet the company on winfs (it didn't die but it certainly got sick). Smells more like the an election result in a one party state. The Gates family has never been widely renowned for wanting to play on a level playing field.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  110. Poor Bill by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Guess he'll have to go home with his head hung down still a billionaire. Seriously though I bet most people would not even make 71 seconds on their best day I wouldn't and I'm a freaking chess junkie. That guy is so good you're fucked from the start but he could have been nice and dragged it out in any case Bill never stood a chance.

  111. 71 seconds by mcswell · · Score: 1

    But I heat my water for *exactly* 71 seconds: the turntable takes 10 seconds to revolve once, and in order to have the mug wind up at the door, so it's easy to take out, I time it for a multiple of ten seconds...plus one second, because of the lag in startup of the turntable.

  112. hahaha by bjan · · Score: 1

    It is not always the one that is richer smarter

    --
    [url=http://www.zapaleniestawow.eu/osteoporoza.html]Osteoporoza - choroba ukladu szkieletowego - zapaleniestawow.e