25
26

Carlsen lost to Hammer (self.chess)

larektundir が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]Mysterymason 18ポイント19ポイント  (69子コメント)

Either that first loss affected him more than he let on or he has personal problems on his mind - there is no way he could have this bad a tournament without an external factor present. He absolutely crushed Shamkir, it's insane how differently he has played this tournament.

[–]yaschobob -39ポイント-38ポイント  (68子コメント)

Statistically, he was due for a bad tournament. The guy hasn't had one since he's been in the top 5, right?

Humans don't defeat the laws of physics or statistics.

It's funny the lack of education here. You are all arguing that chess events are independent of each other, while simultaneously arguing that Magnus was affected by the first round Topalov loss. Clearly, for humans, chess games aren't independent.

[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 30ポイント31ポイント  (41子コメント)

You don't understand statistics

[–]yawg6669 12ポイント13ポイント  (15子コメント)

There's no such thing as "due", I think you're misunderstanding statistics.

[–]MeteosBoyfriend 4ポイント5ポイント  (2子コメント)

Statistics doesn't work that way, you're falling for the gambler's fallacy.

[–]yaschobob -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

Except roulette and chess are fundamentally different.

In chess, past games affect you. That's why everyone's arguing that Magnus was affected by his first round loss to Topalov.

[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

What you are saying has nothing to do with your initial quote: "Statistically, he was due for a bad tournament. The guy hasn't had one since he's been in the top 5, right? Humans don't defeat the laws of physics or statistics."

Of course if someone loses the first game he will likely have a worse tournament compared from the initial probability.

[–]pantaloonsofJUSTICErated 2800 at being a scrub 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

Look up the gambler's fallacy. You are experiencing it.

[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Lol, I like how people are telling this guy he doesn't understand statistics.

Gambler's fallacy is when you suspect that something like a fair coin is due for tails because there have been several heads in a row. Each flip of a coin is statistically independent. The same is not remotely true of playing in chess tournaments or matches. Statistically, Carlsen was due for a bad tournament because you have to account for the psychology associated with the pressure of maintaining a streak, as well as the pressure of playing at home. It would be like if you're playing on a Roulette table where you're betting on black and each time you win, one black is removed. Pressure accumulates such that streaks are inherently difficult to maintain in literally any field of human competition.

*love this is getting downvoted. I am a data scientist. I literally do statistics for a living.

[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I think it's good that you are trying to defend the guy. However look at his initial statement. It is exactly gambler's fallacy. His reasonings for the higher chances of Magnus having a bad tournament were solely based on Magnus not having a bad tournament for a while. The psychologic reasoning came later and has nothing to do with the initial discussion. You being a data scientist doesn't make you right, I'm in a similar field.

[–]voyetra8 1ポイント2ポイント  (0子コメント)

Carlsen was due

I understand what you guys are saying, but you should really stop using the word "due".

[–]MeteosBoyfriend -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

My problem with his argument is that carlsen was due to lose solely because of previous tournament performances. I think that there is an argument to be made whether or not tournaments are independent/dependent, and I haven't seen any evidence to believe in dependency. That is why I brought up gambler's fallacy, but if there is evidence supporting that previous tournament results are somehow dependent, then I would be wrong.

[–]yaschobob -5ポイント-4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I didn't say it was "solely due to previous tournaments." Reading comprehension.

Carlsen hasn't really had a bad tournament yet. Realistically speaking, he was bound to get one sooner or later. Carlsen's bad performance is purely based on the fact that an athlete's statistics are not 100% uniform and consistent for each performance. Nothing more, nothing less.

You dilettantes overstate your intelligence and importance. None of you are special, none of you are smart, none of you contribute to the world intellectually. You all (those disagreeing with me) work mundane jobs and live mundane, replaceable lives.

I however, was 100% correct with my initial statement and actually do contribute to the world intellectually. Based on your stupidity, explain to me why I shouldn't be allowed to wipe you off the face of the Earth. Who do you think you are to argue with me, given that you know absolutely nothing and have no intellectual contributions that anyone will ever care about?

Fuck you.

[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

haha you can't be serious right now

It's okay to be wrong sometimes my friend