Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the how-long-would-you-last? dept.

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."

13 of 449 comments (clear)

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

    Your microwave sucks

  2. 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.

  3. 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 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.

    2. 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.

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

      Those chess grandmasters study the same books and tables extensively.

    4. 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.

    5. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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).

  6. 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.
  7. Re:Bill by phmadore · · Score: 5, Funny

    And he SURE PLAYS SOME MEAN PINBALL.

    (vote up if you get this reference)

  8. 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.