4 ms·
>at least about the moves played You missed a large part. Some of his moves were "somewhat suspect". However, he was interviewed after the game with Magnus and
by esaym 4y ago
>at least about the moves played
You missed a large part. Some of his moves were "somewhat suspect". However, he was interviewed after the game with Magnus and he really could not explain why he was making the moves he made. Even the interviewers were almost laughing as he gave his "analysis" for his own moves. He played off his top engine moves as just getting lucky, while at the same time stating he didn't make other moves because they would have weakened his position (when in fact it was the other way around), while also stating he made other moves to strengthen his position (when in fact it was weakening).
Nothing he said made sense. He is playing against the top players in the entire world, and he can't really describe his games. This is super genius territory, and yet he just claims his skills to mostly just be based on luck.
- roflyear 4y agoHans also is trolling. Who knows if he can't explain or just doesn't want to. It means nothing.
- Loeffelmann 4y agoDo you have a clip of the interview?
- esaym 4y agoThe gmhikaru youtube channel has several of the interviews with live commentary as it was happening.
- aqme28 4y agoA lot of top play ends up being a certain percent intuition. Him beings bad at explaining his intuition is the lowest form of circumstantial evidence.
- bsaul 4y agoYou should see the sequence. He was totally unable to explain any lines he had in mind, stating some positions were « obviously winning » (where it was absolutely not obvious, and in fact the engine marked it as loosing), etc. A total disaster.
- esaym 4y agoI agree, but as I tried to state, there is simply more to it. Giving bad interviews doesn't mean anything. Accidentally beating the world champion doesn't mean anything. Spending all night studying a rarely played chess line that just happens to be the exact line played the next day doesn't really mean anything either. Not really being able to analyze like a GM doesn't mean anything too. But when you have all these factors happening during one game, statistically it is not probable.
- aqme28 4y agoGiven the amount of people who play Magnus in a year, it is not that improbable for one of them to fit this criteria.
- pedrosorio 4y ago
- bsaul 4y agoThis post-game analysis sequence is IMHO the major reason the chess community grants full credit to magnus version.