73
74

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 42ポイント43ポイント  (150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 -110ポイント-109ポイント  (149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 87ポイント88ポイント  (87子コメント)

You don't understand statistics

[–]Rehcamretsnef 2ポイント3ポイント  (0子コメント)

I like you

[–]yawg6669 30ポイント31ポイント  (16子コメント)

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

[–]MeteosBoyfriend 13ポイント14ポイント  (6子コメント)

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

[–]pantaloonsofJUSTICErated 2800 at being a scrub 5ポイント6ポイント  (8子コメント)

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

[–]JPZ__ 5ポイント6ポイント  (3子コメント)

Actually his Elo rating would suggest that he's not at all "due" for a bad tournament

[–]TotesMessenger 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:

If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)

[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 9ポイント10ポイント  (22子コメント)

Give the dude a break.

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 12ポイント13ポイント  (8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.

[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

If his reasoning is as you say it is, it's incorrect. I'm a big fan of the charity principle, however, and assume he meant what he's explaining he meant, namely, that streaks in any human competition are inherently non-independent so saying someone is "due" for a loss makes sense considering psychological factors.

Me being a data scientist doesn't make me right, but neither does people throwing out "gambler's fallacy." He clarified what he meant, so give the guy a break. the internet is negative place and we should try our best to make it at least marginally kinder.

Edit: reading the dude's other posts, he seems preeeeettty rude. So downvote away.

[–]JayLue2000 @ lichess 7ポイント8ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yeah just read his other posts, I will not be charitable with him :)

He just doesn't want to admit he's wrong and seeked for a way out. Look at all the posts about coin tosses from him.

[–]dingledog2031 USCF; 2232 LiChess 8ポイント9ポイント  (0子コメント)

Jesus, I regret defending him.

[–]GosuMagic 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

You cannot factor in an uncontrolled variable like "psychology". You can go the opposite way and say due to "psychological factors" Carlsen is due to win all his games in the future. This line of reasoning can't be calculated so psychology can't be dependent on the future outcome of his games.

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

Of course, but generally the psychological pressure of maintaining a streak is a function of how long that streak is. I once had a Duolingo streak that was 200 days long and was nearly driven to a panic attack every time I barely avoided missing a lesson. The same panic doesn't happen when my streak is only five days long.

I imagine for chess players it gets in their head the moment they realize they're in an unfavorable position, "my god, I shouldn't be losing to Hammer. I haven't lost to a player of his rating in forever. I need to win..." and so on.

[–]GosuMagic 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

You cannot use psychological factors to say Carlsen is Due for a loss. It's very possible he can be due for a win. It could still go both ways. That's why it falls into the Gambler's fallacy.

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

I know this is off track, but what is your job like? I'm a mathematics major myself and would probably get into something like this.

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

It's a fun job. Contributing to Machine Learning (rather than just using it) is what I want to get into, but I don't have the background for it just yet. I was not a math major as an undergrad (Econ), so it's difficult to get the experience without grad school.

Last year, I did big data analysis for a couple of poverty-reduction projects in Nairobi, Kenya. It involved running regressions, and a lot of sanitizing data so it could be used in Stata. I also developed some neat algorithms to detect fraudulent survey entry. Now, I work for a big publication doing any data work needed to be done for journalists.

In the next ten years all the jobs will be in Data Science and Machine Learning, so it's good that you're interested in this stuff.

[–]voyetra8 4ポイント5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 0ポイント1ポイント  (7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.

[–]hubermensch -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

That other guy clearly has problems (see: terminal rudeness), but I do want to support you here by adding that chess games are not independent of each other, and the gambler's fallacy is defined specifically for independent events.

Actually, I can prove that it's common belief that chess games are not independent of each other. In fact, everyone in this thread implicitly believes that chess games are dependent events.

It's called the Elo model, where your performance in one game can increase or decrease your expected performance in games following. Since the word statistics is being thrown around here a lot without really any care for using it correctly, I'll do so now: the Elo model bases your expected score for a game on a logistic curve, which functions more or less as a cumulative density function. These functions form the foundation of classical frequentist statistics. When you win a game, your elo score improves, which is then used in calculating your probability of winning against other opponents -- and winning increases your expected probability of winning against the same person the next time. Erger de facter, the two events are not independent under the Elo model.

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

  1. Nobody stated that chess games are independent. We talk about tournaments as a whole
  2. The ELO system has nothing to do with that. It's just a measure of expected performance.

I'll give you an example: I'm about to play Magnus Carlsen. My winning chances according to my ELO are 2% (probably less in reality). Now I play a tournament just before the game and my ELO rises. After the tournament my expected win rate is 10%. However my skill is still the same.