It is a trick actually. The more time the opponent has, the easier it is for Carlsen, as he uses his opponents turn time to think. An average player doesn't have the skill to put him under pressure.

+edit: you also usually get an extra second or two ( depending on the total time ) per move.

Yeah he has time to think when the opponent is moving, but 30 seconds just isn't a lot of time if you consider there is a minimum practical time per move just based on the physical reality of being a human that has to move the piece and hit the clock, as illustrated pretty well by Carlsen's move where he knocked over a piece and burnt something like 3 seconds on one move.

I think any decently skilled (but non-world-class) chess player could have run him down just by playing defensively. Of course, that would have been terrible tv, so we got someone who probably only plays casually getting steam-rolled by the "Justin Bieber of chess".

"Justin Beiber of chess".

'The Mozart of chess' is the general consensus. The 'Justin Beiber of chess' is rather insulting.

I agree with you, I was sarcastically quoting the article this was linked to.

2nd paragraph under the video:

""Wow, that was fast," he said to Carlsen, whose rockstar appeal has won him the moniker the "Justin Bieber of chess.""

Haha ouch. That's awful.

I couldn't agree more! Why would anyone come up with "Justin Bieber of Chess"?

Freelance journalists aren't paid by the word anymore, they are paid by the Bieber. No sense writing an article without the word Bieber in it, that's not worth a dime.

No one would've been talking about it if they said Mozart of Chess.

I used to play against a chess master, with 5 minutes on my clock and 30 seconds on his. He routinely crushed me.

I also used to play against some amateur chess players with 30 seconds on my clock and 5 minutes on theirs. I routinely crushed them.

Even with 30 seconds, a significantly better player will still almost always win.

Its not really. If I was Bill I would've played a very passive game, shutting down the middle of the board as quickly as possible. Create as complex a middle game as possible, and let Carslen go all in on sacrifices or whatever he'd need to do to break the board open. Deny as many exchanges as possible, win on time.

Disagree. In 30 seconds Carlsen has a much higher recall of the vast number of boards he has played than an average person. This is a mismatch even if Bill Gates is really smart. So in 30 seconds whatever plans an average chess player can conjure up, Carlsen has already seen them 10 moves ahead.

From my other comment: If I was Bill I would've played a very passive game, shutting down the middle of the board as quickly as possible. Create as complex a middle game as possible, and let Carslen go all in on sacrifices or whatever he'd need to do to break the board open. Deny as many exchanges as possible, win on time.

Carlsen quickly realized Bill was a push over and started parking all his pieces on white's kingside as quickly as possible. Bill basically played as poorly as could be expected. To get mated in 9 moves means you've basically forced yourself to lose.

But to execute this strategy well, Bill would have to be much better than he is. Carlsen will crush Bill every time, even if Bill knows ahead of time to play a passive, closed position.

Yes, basically Bill is very bad at chess.

Gates is a below average player. If you're 50 years old and haven't picked up a bat since little league, you're a below average baseball player.

he's a below average chess player playing with 2 minutes on the clock. 30 seconds is comfortable for carlsen, whereas Gates probably doesn't play at 2 minutes regularly. 2 minutes is insanely small amount of time for people that don't play.