Can Stephen Hawkings beat the World chess champion?

Question

Can Hawkings defeat the current World Chess Champion, Vladimir Kramnik, in a 1 on 1 chess match?

Answer 1

No.


Chess is not a measure of intellgence. It's a skill you have to learn and practice. Playing at the highest levels requires *years* of memorization and training. If Hawking hasn't played chess before, he probably wouldn't even be able to beat *me*, and I'm only a Class B player (though I win pretty often against Class A).


When you play in tournaments, you get a rating based on your results and the strength of your opponents. The rating is provisional for a while, meaning it varies quite a bit until you establish yourself. However, after that, it takes a lot of work to advance to a new class (typically 200 points), since the most you can advance in a single match is 31 points for beating someone rating much higher than you are.

This means advancement is slow. My rating is around 1700. Most people around 1700 can win occasionally against people rated as high as 1900 and nearly every time against someone rated 1500 or lower.

Once you get over 2200, the number of points you gain per win is cut in half, so each "tier" of 100 points is worth twice as much in terms of playing skill.

The World Champion typically has a rating close to 2800. He can crush pretty much everyone else in the world, including Hawking. To even challenge Kramnik (or comparable players like Vishy Anand, Alexei Shirov, or the now-retired Garry Kasparov), you need to be rated at least 2700.


I cannot emphasize enough that you need training and practice and study to be good at chess. Hawking has no more chance at beating Kramnik than he would have at beating Itzhak Perelman in a fiddle contest.

Answer 2

First of all, the idea that stephen hawking is unusually intelligent compared to other run-of-the-mill physicists is totally false. Second of all, chess is dependent most of all on study and expeience, and talent is only going to determine what point you will 'plateau' from your study. Chess talent is, id say, about 50% related to IQ. It would be rather rare, but possible for a person under 120 IQ to acquire a GM title, and it wouldnt be uncommon for a devoted chess student with 160 IQ to never get their GM title.

Besides, noone can beat Kramnik, cause the guy is a god.

The world class players are, by the way: Kramnik, Topolov, and Morozevich. Shirov isnt even close.

Answer 3

We can not answer that question because Stephen will never become a chess champion but i guess we can still post opinions. If Stephen became a dedicated player and was still young, yes he might stand a chance. However, chess is a game of skill, as well as intelligence and chess champions have a high level in both! So no, Stephen does not stand a chance...

Answer 4

Yes he could! But the chances that he would would probably be greater than the number of up quarks in the entire universe, to one. Since Stephen Hawking has a better idea of what that number would be than myself, I don't think he would entertain playing Kramnik for a win for more than a brief moment of time.

Answer 5

initially, the thought stephen hawking is surprisingly clever whilst in comparison with different run-of-the-mill physicists is punctiliously fake. 2nd of all, chess relies upon maximum of all on learn and expeience, and ability is in simple terms going to be sure what component you will 'plateau' out of your learn. Chess expertise is, identity say, approximately 50% with regards to IQ. it may be quite uncommon, yet available for a individual below a hundred and twenty IQ to get carry of a GM identify, and it wouldnt be uncommon for a committed chess student with one hundred sixty IQ to in no way get their GM identify. besides, noone can beat Kramnik, reason the guy is a god. the international type gamers are, via ways: Kramnik, Topolov, and Morozevich. Shirov isnt even close.

Answer 6

Chess is a specialized skill that requires a great deal of practice. Furthermore, a world class chess match requires a lot of physical stamina which Hawkings is sorely lacking.

Answer 7

I would tend to doubt it. The chess master would prevail given his far superior knowledge of chess strategy. This knowledge comes only from experience in competition.

Answer 8

No.

Nor can Kramnik better theorize quantum physics. The fields are not related.

Answer 9

It's like asking whether Michael Jordan can beat Tiger Woods in golf. Or whether Tiger can beat Michael in basketball.

Answer 10

He could if he wanted to-depends on how well he can play at chess.