200? I must be unclear on what you’re describing. Otherwise I think you’re off by at least a few orders of magnitude there.
My god…why didn’t Karpov ever think of this??
Playins as slow as possible just means that when your clock runs out, you’ve only made 10 moves instead of 40. You still lose. Classical chess usually stipulates 40 moves in 2 hours for the first time control. It’s up to you how you budget your time but the average should be 3 mins. per move.
:smack:
Only if he lives longer.
I suppose he just wasn’t all that clever.
As a complete aside, The Onion back in, like, 1997, ran a funny cartoon titled “Is Mike Tyson as smart as Stephen Hawking is strong?” and ran them through a series of tests.
I can’t find it online anywhere.
Which, given that a standard basketball game is 1 hour long, is more than enough time, as long as Jordan can keep the clock stoppages under control.
I think the lesson of this thread is that more people appreciate what makes Jordan exceptional than Kasparov. In practise, they couldn’t play each other enough times for the underdog to have a significant statistical chance of a win, without external factors such as injury, ageing or death taking precedence.
Exactly. That’s the plan. Jordan isn’t going to checkmate Kasparov under any circumstances. But Jordan “wins” is he keeps the game going for over an hour.
I.m not sure I understand what you mean.
Even if Jordan only played as white, he would still have to memorise more than “one opening”. For example, if he chose 1. e4 as his first move, Black has several plausible responses (e.g. 1. …e5, 1. …e6, 1. …c6, 1. …Nf6, 1. …d6, 1. …d5, 1. …Nc6), all of which Jordan would have to learn. And that’s just on the first move! Not to mention that until Jordan reached master level (if indeed he ever did), Kasparov could play literally any legal move in response to 1. e4 and still win comfortably. So I’m not convinced this strategy helps Jordan a whole lot.
The only sensible answer to the question is that a debilitating injury is much more likely in basketball, so Kasparov would win first on that basis. Glaucoma (leading to loss of sight), for example, would surely cause Jordan to lose at basketball, but would be hardly any handicap to Kasparov. So it is more likely that he wins first (though of course if Kasparov were to slip into a coma for some reason before Jordan had his injury, Jordan could win first).
Amazing how an apparently inane question can generate such an interesting thread!
I think the best way to answer this is, neither one would ever beat the other, except in the most random unpredictable way, that provides no insight in who is more likely to win.
I explained my thinking in my first post. Neither man will beat the other at his own game: Jordan will win at basketball and Kasparov will win at chess. So the decision of who beat who first will be made on who won their game in less time.
My argument was that a basketball game has a fixed length of time and then it’s over. But you can draw out a chess game. All Jordan has to do is draw out the chess game long enough so it takes longer than the basketball game did. Then both men will have won one game apiece and Jordan will win the tie-breaker because he won the basketball game in less time than it took Kasparov to win the chess game.
Little Nemo and Chronos, I don’t know if you guys know this but a chess clock has two clocks. One for each player. After a move you press the clock button on your side to start your opponent’s clock. In order for Jordan to run Kasparov out of time, Jordan has to move. Playing slow means Jordan is wasting his own time not Kasparov’s. Kasparov can go eat a sandwich, do his taxes, whatever.
One sneaky way to claim victory would be to wait for Kasparov to get bored and get up and go do something, then make your move so K’s clock is running while he’s gone. Kasparov doesn’t come back in time, claim a win. But that’s not gonna work for the up to 4 hrs. of a chess game and is not what we’re debating anyway.
ETA: Oh you’re talking about moral victories.
Jordan doesn’t have to draft his own chess pieces, does he?
Dead cat, inane?! This question is deep, yo.
Maybe he can spring glee’s, muckspreader on Kasparov.
I don’t think you understand the premise. The question was whether Jordan will win at chess before Kaspy wins at basketball. Jordan beating Kaspy at basketball means nothing and grants no victory. Even if they play 100 basketball games first and Jordan wins every one, he still doesn’t win the contest until he checkmates Kasparov.
Further, I have no idea why you’ve postulated simultaneous games.
Because they didn’t play enough games together. I’m assuming both players are immortal and they’re both devoting their entire time, money, and attention to winning this contest. So let’s say Jordan gets to expert level after 4 years of training and Kaspy has the conditioning and shooting precision of a 50-year old Russian after equal training.
After so many chess games together, say 200 or 300 or more, Jordan will have effectively been trained by Kasparov himself, albeit unwillingly. Interestingly, Jordan can just ape whatever Kasparov did in the last game, forcing the grandmaster to constantly innovate against his own play.
Little by little, game by game, Kasparov’s repertoire meets the light of day and Jordan can fine-tune his play against it. Eventually Kasparov resorts to inferior moves and Jordan capitalizes.
On the basketball court, however, Kasparov is never going to get “trained by” Jordan, no matter how many times they play.