2 ms·

A 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 ago
  You 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.
  • aqme28 4y ago
    I have seen the sequence. I have also watched other chess interviews and while bad, it's really not as bad, comparatively, as you describe.
  • roflyear 4y ago
    It isn't that bad.
• esaym 4y ago
  I 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 ago
    Given 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
      And that one just happens to be a kid who was caught cheating online twice (unlike any of his other opponents) and was an unremarkable player until the age of 17 but has since attained 2700+ level (unlike any of the current young 2700+ players who all reached GM level before the age of 15).