Jordan vs. Kasparov: Who beats whom first?

Not true. And it wouldn’t even make sense that that would be true. Yes, you need to go through a lot of options, but the key is picking the right move. You don’t need to search every option, or do it at a faster rate to make a better chess player. If that were the case, than people would never win as any human could never evan approach that level of depth. Also note the wiki article backs me up.

The trend seems to be less brute force, and more pattern recognition and strength evaluation. That’s why these programs can run on a mobile phone.

While I agree with your latter point to an extent, the comparison still makes no sense. It’s just an attempt to use big numbers to confound people. It’s like when people try to show how complex chess is by stating that the number of permutations is bigger than the number of atoms in the universe. That’s all well and good, but it tells us very little about how people actual play chess.

I can see how it’s easy to underestimate how good Kasparov is at chess, but that really doesn’t address the nature of this bet. People can typically hone their intellect at a faster pace and to a greater extent than they can their physical skills. Specifically, it is easier to develop a chess sense, than to be tall. In a 1-on-1 basketball game, all Jordan would do is back him down to the basket, then put in a layup. The ability to do that is primarily a function of him being taller, stronger, and quicker. Maybe Kasparov could theoretically match the latter two, but he can’t ever get taller. Nor is there are strategy, skill, or tactic he could emulate after being beaten ad infinitum.

Society has more numerous, and more effective tools to help people work smarter and think better, and because those tools can be used with greater leverage, the ability of a novice to become great at an intellectual pursuit absence disability, and given enough time is fairly high.

Second, in most intellectual pursuits, it is much easier to follow than lead. Kasparov changed the game. Now, younger people can follow that with far more ease than he did innovating. This is why a high school student knows more math than Euclid and many other great mathematicians of the past. It doesn’t mean they are smarter of more gifted. It just means they have the benefit of coming after things were figured out. While sports strategy is subject to the same effect, such strategy needn’t be used in a 1-on-1 game.

Third, Jordan has the benefit of learning from entities far better than Kasparov ever was. Those entities being computers. He can play them and learn. Kasparov can’t learn to be taller.

Can you quantify, in Elo rating preferably, how good?

If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re asking which game has the bigger gulf between the best player and the second-best. That’s probably basketball, since it isn’t even unambiguous that Kasparov is the best human player. He’s won world championships, but he does not have the highest rating.

Yup, that’s pretty much what I was asking. At least in my head, it seemed much more likely that Kasparov could keep winning matches against Anand/Karpov etc. for longer than Jordan could hold off whoever’s second best in basketball in a one-on-one. Also, I’d appreciate thoughts on the Jordan vs. CEO video posted earlier. Why was the (seeming) amateur able to get two consecutive baskets against Jordan?

Because the “seeming amateur” paid $25,000 to be at a basketball camp with Michael Jordan (he was the CEO of Duke energy, the other guys watching were CEO’s as well), because Michael Jordan probably grosses half a million for participating in this thing for a week, and because Michael Jordan wants to keep this gravy train running.

So you let the guy score some, you still win (Jordan still beat the guy), you pocket a half-million, the other guy gets to say he scored on MJ (but still lost), and he’s willing to pay $25k to do this again next year.

Actually Jordan lost 3-2. Hence Jordan’s “Oh no!” when thw winning shot went up and Damon Wayans’ subsequent trash talking. I’ve observed that people who hoop for a living, or want to, never play seriously if you aren’t on their level. Partly because it’s no fun and they’re worried about getting hurt.

Actually 48 minutes in the NBA and shorter in college.

I think there’s some fun math-with-large-numbers to be done here. Let’s do a back-of-the-envelope calculation…

A chess game lasts an average of 60 moves (30 moves per side? or 60 moves per side?). In each situation there are, say, 10 moves that are approximately reasonable. If we assume that only one of those 10 moves is the perfect one to beat Kasparov in each situation (which is a silly assumption, but then so is the assumption that there are 10 reasonable moves), then a baseline competent chess player picking a move at random will beat Kasparov one game in 10^30, or possibly 10^60.
If I’m playing basketball against Michael Jordan, and it’s 1-on-1, and it’s NOT win-by-2, then I can win by just taking the ball every time I have it, and heaving it towards the basket and praying, and as long as I make 11 straight (if we’re playing to 21 with 3-pointers counting as 2 points) without getting blocked, I will win. With Michael Jordan in my face so I that I have to sprint backwards and then heave it awkwardly over his outstretched hand I might make one shot in every 50 attempts or so? So I would win one game in 50^11 attempts. That’s a big number… but much much smaller than 10^30, and hugely smaller than 10^60.
Therefore, with math, I have proven that Kasparov will be Jordan before Jordan beats Kasparov.

I was thinking along similar lines, except in chess I think the deciding factor would be how often Kasparov makes a blunder. Of course, in real life they’d probably either fall in love or kill each other (possibly both) well before reaching this point.

It’s based on a made up number, though, so it’s worthless. You’re not going to make that shot once in 50 tries.

Trying making one shot in every fifty without Jordan.

Wasn’t it Kasparov himself who said that the winner of a chess game was the player who made the second-to-last mistake? By the standards of a chess professional, multiple mistakes per game are the norm. But if another chess professional can’t even always turn a mistake by the opponent into a win, what makes you think an amateur can?

For comparison, losing a rook without compensation would be an exceedingly great blunder, and in any evenly-matched game, the player who had lost it would immediately concede. But yet, the top chess pros can deliberately give up a rook as a handicap at the start of the game, when playing against amateurs.

In Chess terminology, a blunder is a very bad mistake. I’d guess the probability of Kasparov having a brainstorm is greater than the probability of Jordan playing a really string game by chance. Impossible to put numbers on either though.

Alright, who submitted this to Deadspin’s funbag? Or is the OP’s question a previously- and elsewhere-established meme?

I saw that, too. It wasn’t me!

It was me.

Congrats on your bong usage!

Also, congrats on wording your OP better than this OP. I thought my first reply was witty, until about half a page later when I realized that’s actually what he was asking about!

Well to be fair the bong hit probably should go to emonaj. I’m a big fan of the funbag, I think Magery is an exceptionally witty writer and I thought it was the kind of questions he tends to respond to.

He was doing book readings for The Postmortal last fall and into the winter, and he did one here (Milwaukee). At all of them, I think, he went out with anyone from audience inclined to go out for drinks. He’s as funny in person as his writing. He’s the first writer I’ve heard of doing shots with his readers after a reading. I’m definitely a fan.