Fans ‘can't stop watching' moment chess grandmaster loses his cool and slams table in disgust after conceding defeat
A CHESS grandmaster has gone viral after losing his cool and slamming the table in disgust following a shock defeat.
Magnus Carlsen fumed after losing to chess world champion Gukesh Dommaraju.
4
4
4
After conceding defeat the world No1 slammed his fist on the table, sending pieces flying.
He then showed the presence of mind to offer a handshake to his opponent, before getting up to his feet, seemingly about to storm off.
Instead Carlsen picked up some of the fallen pieces and then patted a stunned Gukesh on the back.
Gukesh, 19, is the youngest chess world champion ever, and this was his first victory over Carlsen, the chess GOAT.
Carlsen is a five-time world champion and semi-retired in 2022, so this was just the second meeting between the pair.
The first came in the same tournament in Norway last week, with Carlsen winning comfortably.
After that victory, the Norwegian tweeted: "If you come for the king, you best not miss."
Carlsen was also on top in the second clash, but a rare blunder allowed Gukesh to take advantage with a counter-attack that led Carlsen to resign.
After the win the Indian said: 'Right now, what means the most to me is that I didn't lose the game.
'But yes, beating Magnus in any form is special.'
Ebereche Eze wins £15,000 in celebrity online chess tournament - and celebrates more than his Wembley FA Cup goal
Fans could not get enough of the clip of Carlsen losing his cool, which has attracted 8.5million views on X.
One reacted saying: "I can't stop watching this and I don't know why."
Another added: "What a sore loser. You're still one of the goats bruh. chill."
And a third wrote: "Two elite athletes wearing their hearts on their sleeves. That's why we love sports."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
27 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Female law firm worker sued for victimisation after male colleague mentioned 'pretty privilege' and told her 'good girl'
A female law firm supervisor sued for victimisation after complaining about a male colleague discussing 'pretty privilege' - where better looking women are more likely to succeed. Catherine Guinee reported Aaron Hodges to bosses for claiming that attractive women are more likely to secure contracts, an employment tribunal heard. The 49-year-old also complained that he had said 'good girl' to her and his remarks led to him receiving a warning about the 'need to be careful about his use of language in the workplace'. However, after Miss Guinee lost her job shortly afterwards she launched legal proceedings claiming the firm had failed to investigate her allegations properly. Her claims were dismissed after the tribunal ruled that her employers had not ignored her complaint. The hearing in central London was told Miss Guinee started working at Pogust Goodhead, a London-based law firm with over 500 staff members, in March 2023. The firm set up a call centre for people to make claims relating to the diesel emissions scandal, with Miss Guinee - who suffers from multiple sclerosis - hired as a client services supervisor. The hearing was told that shortly after she started she made the complaint to boss Urika Shrestha about colleague Mr Hodges. Employment Judge Anthony Snelson said: 'We find that, probably very early on [Miss Guinee] did complain privately to her colleague about an exchange with Mr Hodges in which he had said 'good girl' to her and another in which the two had discussed 'pretty privilege', the notion that female candidates regarded as good-looking were more likely to secure training contracts than others seen as less attractive. 'We accept [Ms Shrestha's] evidence evidence that she spoke with Mr Hodges and reminded him of the need to be careful about his use of language in the workplace.' The tribunal did find that Ms Shrestha did not tell Miss Guinee that she had had this conversation, however, The tribunal heard that on April 11 - ahead of a meeting - she sent a message to her boss complaining about competition within the team. She sent another message to the head of HR, saying: 'I have relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis. I do not need mind games, being messed around, being pulled one way and another.' She then approached another line manager, clearly agitated, and started shouting that things were 'bullshit' and that she was being denied her access to certain reports because she was a woman. When the meeting started, when a colleague was speaking, Miss Guinee started pointing and shouting at her, the hearing was told. She again complained of 'bullshit' and called her a 'little girl', which shocked the other members of the team. She then called Mr Hodges 'adopted', 'scummy' and a 'money-grabber' and claimed Ms Shrestha was treating staff like 'slaves'. Ms Guinee was then asked to go home and it was later agreed by colleagues that she should be fired as 'she did not meet the standards required for her role'. She then sued for disability and sex discrimination as well as victimisation. Regarding Mr Hodges' remarks, the tribunal said: 'We find that there was no 'failure' to follow up the complaint' and also ruled that her gender and MS had nothing to do with her being fired as no one involved knew of her illness. EJ Snelson said: 'If, as we find, the decision to dismiss was taken at a time when the decision maker had no knowledge of the relevant medical condition, it follows that that condition cannot have been the reason, or a material reason, for the dismissal. 'It was common ground that at the time of dismissal [Miss Guinee] had taken no sick leave. She exhibited no symptoms in the workplace. 'The person who dismissed her was the very person who had interviewed and appointed her only a month earlier. The notion that he was disposed to discriminate against on her grounds of sex is entirely unsubstantiated. '[Miss Guinee] was dismissed in accordance with her contract, under which [Pogust Goodhead] was at liberty to terminate on notice.'
The Independent
35 minutes ago
- The Independent
Fears thousands of power meters won't work after tech switch-off
Octopus Energy is urging customers with outdated radio teleswitch (RTS) meters to upgrade to smart meters before 30 June, when the broadcasting signal will be switched off, affecting over 600,000 customers. RTS meters, introduced in the 1980s, use longwave radio signals from the BBC to switch between peak and off-peak rates, but this system is being discontinued. The energy supplier explained that if you have a large black box next to your meter, you may have an RTS meter. Jan Shortt of the National Pensioners Convention noted that many affected households may be unaware of their RTS meters or the impending switch-off. Customers who do not switch to smart meters may face overcharges for electricity or be left without hot water and heating.
The Independent
40 minutes ago
- The Independent
As the war drums beat, Nato's leaders have one big problem
The relentless beat of war drums within Nato gets louder by the day. Mark Rutter, the alliance's secretary general added to the noise by saying 'we have to go further and faster' to expand Europe's war machines. With the US taking a step back and demanding more from across the Atlantic, the stakes could hardly be higher. But spending on defence to the levels once seen during the Cold War means less money for health, education, policing – stuff that really matters. It means more moolah for the perennially dodgy revolving door in defence procurement, where former government officials and politicians take lucrative gigs with defence companies and overcharge the British taxpayer for lousy military equipment. It puts strategic decisions in the hands of generals, admirals and air marshals, who often favour their own services over the national interest, and who made a bloody Horlicks of Britain's efforts in Iraq and Helmand, Afghanistan. And if the 3.5 per cent of GDP target for defence spending that Nato believes is necessary, then we're all going to get poorer because taxes will have to go up. It's all a terrible idea. But the alternatives are much, much worse. Sir Keir Starmer has said that the UK will, he hopes, spend up to 3 per cent of its GDP on defence 'to make Britain safer and stronger, a battle-ready, armour-clad nation with the strongest alliances and the most advanced capabilities'. The British prime minister gets it. He knows that Britain, and the rest of Europe alongside Canada, have relied on America taxpayers to fund the UK's security for too many decades. Now there is a clear and present danger from Russia. China is maneuvering with guile but expanding its armed forces with terrifying energy, Islamic terror remains a problem (and will get worse because of Gaza). Climate change is driving conflicts, literally, from here to Timbuktu, and well beyond. Competition for scarce resources on a planet mankind has poisoned will intensify. Starmer's problem isn't that he cannot see the strategic dangers, nor that he is shy of waving a red flag. His problem, shared by politicians across Europe, with the exception of Poland and some of the front-line Baltic states, is that his constituents just don't care. And among the younger voter the attitudes to national defence are dire. Some 41 per cent of 18–27-year-olds polled by The Times earlier this year said that there were no circumstances under which they would fight for their country. Idealistic young people are the lifeblood of democracy. That 48 per cent thought that the UK was a racist nation is damning – but a sign that they'll do something to correct this shameful stupidity. But refusing to fight to protect the freedoms that democracy bring is a decadent complacency that enemies like Russia and China are counting on. And they are enemies, not rivals. They want our stuff, our capital, our farmland and gold with as much energy and avarice as the British harnessed to create their empire. 'We've unforgivably… launched a set of wars of choice, which have imposed sacrifice needlessly on young people and there's great cynicism about this idea of collective effort to defend your country,' Sir Alex Younger, former head of MI6 told Independent TV. 'I think we're more comfortable thinking about the army as like the England football team; they go and do their thing over there and we watch it on telly – and that can't happen anymore,' he warned. Sir Alex has children of fighting age. So do I. The idea that my son and daughter, and their friends, could be called up to fight Russia banishes sleep. If they were Ukrainian, many of the kind, clever, thoughtful and progressive young people that surround my children would now be dead. Ukraine has sought to protect Generation Z from the worst of the war by recruiting the old folks first. For the last two or three years the average age of a frontline soldier has been 43. In Vietnam the average dead GI was 19. But many of the patriotic young, those who held back the Russian advance in the early days of the full-scale invasion in 2022, who joined reconnaissance units and stopped Russian columns in their tracks with extraordinary daring, are now dead. 'We're dying to protect your democracy,' said a former computer programmer with the call sign 'Grumpy' told me in Kharkiv last year. He was one of those recce soldiers who took on Putin's columns as part of a self-motivating unit in borrowed pickup trucks. He stole a Russian T-80 tank, used it to destroy 14 other armoured vehicles in one night, fought in Bakhmut's 'meat grinder' engagements, was shot through the thigh. He now leads the development of drones in the new age of warfare. Grumpy is the sort of warrior that young people enjoy pretending to be in video games and nostalgic tales of SAS daring-do from WW2. Poland is on track to spend 4.7 per cent of its GDP on defence and is expanding its armed forces and at least 70 per cent of Poles support this effort. Finland, with its long border with Russia and (like Poland) memory of what Russian troops have done in the past – makes all males serve between six and 12 months in the military. Britain, meanwhile, is failing to even meet the tiny target of 73,000 men and women to serve in the army. The total number of UK armed forces is around 182,000. That's about 20,000 less than the US Marine Corps. Britain may have its problems. It is a deeply flawed nation with an inadequate democracy, hung up on class, infected by imperial nostalgia and falls short of what it could be in too many ways. But it does have freedom. Putin's Russia, Xi's China, extremist Muslims, and the nationalistic far-right Christians of America don't like or respect democracy and the liberties it guarantees. They're using hybrid warfare, social media, infiltration of our political elites, and outright military might to undermine what we have and, in the end, to pinch it. Like democracy itself, more defence spending is the least bad option Britain has.
