Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

en.chessbase.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 92 posts

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#61

Post by V-2 »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #19
eddotman wrote: post #7

The brevity and bluntness in his responses is pretty amusing. I'm surprised he so candidly rates his own abilities and the abilities of his peers - I feel like many people would dodge those questions in public interviews.

> I'm surprised he so candidly rates his own abilities and the abilities of his peers // In chess though you have a ranking, you have past games to compare. It would be silly for him to say "oh, I'm not that good" as there's a measured value which [possibly incorrectly] says he's the world number one. Similarly he spends a lot of his time assessing his opponents, their games, their characters. I found it interesting…

There's also rating inflation, though, which makes cross-era comparisons flawed.

And besides, many players have their nemesis. Sheer numbers don't reflect that.

Eg. Anand used to be one of the strongest players in the world, but overshadowed, some say intimidated, by Kasparov before the latter retired.

Given Anand's rating, he performed quite poorly against Kasparov.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#62

Post by V-2 »

CurtMonash wrote: post #38

I don't find his disclaimers about his intelligence persuasive. He's obviously a pretty smart guy; at least, he was quite the smart kid. That said, I had monumentally high IQ scores as a little kid, and they are surely vastly lower in adulthood. So I'm not very eager to be retested either. ;)

Being smart is one thing, but does intelligence account for his chess accomplishments?

The urban legend of Kasparov's IQ being in the 190 range is still purported, but once he was actually examined (an initiative of "Der Spiegel" magazine) it turned out his IQ was 135 or so.

This is highly intelligent, of course, but that's like 1 in 100 or 1 in 150, so people with higher IQ are still dime a dozen.

Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much - it's a "dexterous fingers" thing. You surely need dexterous fingers to become an accomplished neurosurgeon or a violinist, but this trait is pointless by itself, and 1 in a 1000 level of dexterity is good enough, so you don't gain anything by going beyond that.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#63

Post by V-2 »

simplegeek wrote: post #54
tbrake wrote: post #15

He briefly talks about Kasparov here as they were training together at the time. They later broke up. I wonder if some of the conflict they felt was was really Magnus's more organic, natural approach clashing with Kasparov's more like systematic and rigid type of training, which he no doubt inherited from Botvinnik. This isn't to say Magnus doesn't work hard at his game but on a chess approach scale of, say, Capablan…

I get the impression that they didn't break up. They still train together from what I understand after reading the interview.

Hm, the interview is from 2010. It is my understanding that they parted soon after.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#64

Post by muyuu »

boomlinde wrote: post #52
amelius wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The issue with a game like Magic is that you can play perfectly and still lose. This may also hold for chess.

If by "playing perfectly" you mean making the right moves, not really. If the goal of chess is to win, the perfect player can't lose. If a person plays perfectly and loses, what does that make the winning player? The point here is obviously that Magic has an element of chance that chess lacks.

In real terms it does happen, since branching factor makes true perfection impossible in chess.

You can play theoretically superior chess and calculate more positions than your opponent and still lose the game, although it's very unlikely. Both player have a horizon and sometimes they can bump in a position of clear superiority for one side that none predicted.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#65

Post by V-2 »

wavesandwind wrote: post #56

I'm currently reading a fascinating book on world-class performance, "The Art of Learning" by Josh Waizkind, a chess and martial arts champion. It gives some really great insights into the world-class players' psychology. Highly recommended!

Yeah, Waitzkin is a good read. I've got this book, too.

I first heard about him when I got Chessmaster, which came with his video tutorials. And these were the best I've ever seen, in terms of insightfulness and pedagogical skills.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#66

Post by V-2 »

chubot wrote: post #30
mhomde wrote: post #13

I think there might be a correlation between being lazy and being creative. I've seen this pattern in many other greats (and in my not so great self :) Aaron Sorkin talks about procrastinating a lot between writing sessions. Lots of painters and artists procrastinate as well. I think its a matter of digestion, your mind is focused on a "task" and churning in the background, but you don't actively work on it except wh…

Paul Graham wrote about procrastination: http://www.paulgraham.com/procrastination.html I think it's commonly assumed that people procrastinate because they are lazy. Even procrastinators will berate themselves for being undisciplined and lazy. But it's not that simple; I think there is value in being "lazy", or what is perceived as lazy.

As Larry Wall (creator of Perl) put it once, there are three great virtues of a programmer - laziness, impatience and hubris.

Of course it doesn't have to be true only in case of programmers. Good laziness is when you strive to reduce your energy expenditure while still being determined to accomplish something.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#67

Post by easytiger »

eddotman wrote: post #7

The brevity and bluntness in his responses is pretty amusing. I'm surprised he so candidly rates his own abilities and the abilities of his peers - I feel like many people would dodge those questions in public interviews.

> The brevity and bluntness in his responses is pretty amusing.

You don't know many Russians do you? ;)

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#68

Post by simonpantzare »

dasil003 wrote: post #14
eddotman wrote: post #7

The brevity and bluntness in his responses is pretty amusing. I'm surprised he so candidly rates his own abilities and the abilities of his peers - I feel like many people would dodge those questions in public interviews.

The intersection of chess and Scandinavianism is strong here. Fortunately the HN crowd is one of the most appreciative of that degree of bluntness.

The Law of Jante is nowhere to be seen. Hooray! /Swede

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#69

Post by noir_lord »

easytiger wrote: post #67
eddotman wrote: post #7

The brevity and bluntness in his responses is pretty amusing. I'm surprised he so candidly rates his own abilities and the abilities of his peers - I feel like many people would dodge those questions in public interviews.

> The brevity and bluntness in his responses is pretty amusing. You don't know many Russians do you? ;)

Carlsen is Norwegian though they are similarly known for bluntness.

Re: Magnus Carlsen – “I am chaotic and lazy” (2010)

#70

Post by fenomas »

V-2 wrote: post #62
CurtMonash wrote: post #38

I don't find his disclaimers about his intelligence persuasive. He's obviously a pretty smart guy; at least, he was quite the smart kid. That said, I had monumentally high IQ scores as a little kid, and they are surely vastly lower in adulthood. So I'm not very eager to be retested either. ;)

Being smart is one thing, but does intelligence account for his chess accomplishments? The urban legend of Kasparov's IQ being in the 190 range is still purported, but once he was actually examined (an initiative of "Der Spiegel" magazine) it turned out his IQ was 135 or so. This is highly intelligent, of course, but that's like 1 in 100 or 1 in 150, so people with higher IQ are still dime a dozen. Personally I'm of…

> Personally I'm of an opinion that IQ doesn't mean much

Opinions certainly vary there! My first "real" programming job interview began with an IQ test, and passing it was basically what got me an offer. The company owner scored the test in front of me, and said "Not bad.. five points above the minimum I'd consider hiring for a developer position."

Post reply on HN