< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 80 OF 81 ·
|Dec-26-10|| ||iamsheaf: <frogebert> <evasive actions consisting of a half-dozen posts tire even me out> With due respect, I was not asking you about specific algorithms. I was not evading that part, I was interested in a different question. |
And you are quite right, I am not a programmer, and I am guessing you are one and certainly a good one. cheers
|Dec-27-10|| ||frogbert: merry christmas to you too. :o)|
|Dec-27-10|| ||MrMelad: <iamsheaf> I'm happy that you didn't mean that literally.. Actually, logically speaking, saying that "Any inference based on head to head score is not very relevant" is wrong, because some things could always be inferred from other things. I understand that you meant it inside a context, but it makes little sense to give it quotation marks and making it a general statement.|
In any case, I didn't mean any harm and hope you and all are reading my messages with a smile on your face, and love in your heart!
|Dec-27-10|| ||MrMelad: And, to answer your question:
<if the head to head b/w Mr K and Mr. S was +7 -0 =25 would that imply that K is less stronger than he actually was ?>
Yes, if Kasparov had a lesser score against Shirov, he would be considered less strong the same way Fischer wouldn't be hailed as one of the best if he didn't went 6-0 6-0 5-1 7-3. The reality is that this score had happened so no need for guessing what if.
I hope my point is more clear now.
|Dec-27-10|| ||MrMelad: Just a little logical exercise,
<some things could always be inferred from other things>
By treating the statement that Kasparov is +17 -0 against Shirov as a tautology, it could be inferred that the names of the players are Kasparov and Shirov :)
|Dec-27-10|| ||turbo231: <Naka's tweet:
A brief stopover in Dubai, but hopefully I will have the opportunity to do a simul there sometime. Seems to be a great place all around!>
Does anyone know why Naka is in Dubai?
I went to his website and checked his schedule, there's nothing listed there.
|Dec-27-10|| ||turbo231: Well Naka has an event Jan 15-31 Tata Steel Chess what ever that is, and March 12-24 Melody Amber Blindfold&Rapid. I guess he's going over there early.|
|Dec-27-10|| ||metatron2: <frog: i insist on an "algorithm", a function or a simple, objective method to tell when a player has reached his/her <mature level> [..] it's about making head-to-head scores a tiny little meaningful>|
The main reason the head-to-head scores are meaningless, is because they are made of a <small> and random sample, hence I don't think you can produce an accurate algorithm, that will turn that information into something that is (a little bit) meaningful, by reducing its sample size even further..
If you try setting an accurate algorithm for mature-level-start-date, One may claim that we need to remove periods when players were preparing for the WC matches and hiding their preparations, or that we need to remove periods when the player turned too old, or when he was sick (such as Ankylosing outburst for Kramnik). And should we include periods when Ivanchuk's rollercoaster is going down? after all he is not at his "usual" level there isn't he? and maybe when the rollercoaster is going up it doesn't represent a "mature Chuky" either and we should remove it as well? And what about stupid blunders in winning positions? are they representative? or taking a draw while having a clear advantage to secure a tourney (or team tourney) win? is that representative or not? and the list goes on..
If you start cleaning your small sample, you will be left with something very tiny, that will probably be even more meaningless (if that is even possible..). So the best you can do, is probably just to remove periods that don't make any sense at all. For Carlsen that's probably to take a start date around 2008 give or take 6 months for each direction. But you can't really argue about a specific date in that range, to make his comparisons more meaningful, because in any case, the most those comparisons can mean, is give some indication whether some specific player is a tougher opponent for Magnus to handle or not. It says <nothing> about the relative strength between them, simply because the sample is too small and is randomly spread over time.
|Dec-27-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: <metatron2>
I agree, and think in the case of most players a "lifetime achievement" of Head-to-Head scores will tend to even out all of these factors, making them irrelavent.
The only case wherein we need to take a starting date is in a case like Carlsen's, a meteroric rise to the top. In this position it is difficult to choose something that can be verifiably called objective, so anyone who attempts to do so could be called "arbitrary", or even worse, a "cherrypicker".
So what to do?? I think an algorithm is ok, however it is difficult to make one based on a certain static rating, as by definition a meteoric rise (the only situation wherein this becomes necessary) will negate the effectiveness of using a static rating considering the strength of the player is probably not accurately reflected by their rating at that time....
A conundrum indeed.
To choose a Top Ten rating position for a candidate who has been adding to their rating consistently for some time is to choose a candidate who is very much more likely a Top Five strength at the time the rating list is published.
Of course this is not always the case, merely a likely scenario considering the data set. Anyone's level of play may level off at any time, but considering they are gaining points, the player's level of play most likely is above where their rating is, bringing me back to my original point...
So I think both <Frogbert> and <IamSheaf> have defensible, though not inerrant positions. As in all engineering, the idea is to pick the least worst system, considering all factors.
What is that exactly? Oh my friend, but that would reveal too much!!!
|Dec-27-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: You may accuse me of Cherrypicking, but please listen to my case first:|
Let us take the set of games involving Carlsen, taking into account only the games wherein Carlsen is the victor.
Let us then take the set of games involving Kasparov, taking into account only the games wherein he was the loser.
Comparing the two sets brings me to the undeniable conclusion that Carlsen is stronger than Kasparov!!!
|Dec-27-10|| ||iamsheaf: <Actually, logically speaking, saying that "Any inference based on head to head score is not very relevant" is wrong, because some things could always be inferred from other things> Please don't speak "logically", it's very scary to read "logical" at chessgames. |
<I'm happy that you didn't mean that literally> sorry to make you unhappy, I did mean that "literally".
not relevant = irrelevant. not very relevant = irveryrelevant if that was a word.
Head to head data has a limited relevance. That's my view, you are free to disagree.
And a Merry Christmas and a happy new year to you,<frogbert>, <Bobwhoosta> and all the kibitzers.
|Dec-27-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: <iamsheaf>
MERRY CHRISTMAS!! And a very Happy New Year as well my friend!!
|Dec-27-10|| ||anandrulez: Many european flights go via Dubai as it is an international hub and many people also go there just for shopping like Dubai shoppign festival etc . Hence he might be in Dubai for just having some fun / shopping etc ...|
|Dec-28-10|| ||turbo231: <anandrulez: Many european flights go via Dubai as it is an international hub and many people also go there just for shopping like Dubai shoppign festival etc . Hence he might be in Dubai for just having some fun / shopping etc ...>|
Thanks I didn't know that.
|Dec-28-10|| ||anandrulez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burj_K...
Dubai has some important landmarks like Burj Dubai which is the tallest building in the world - so really nobody goes there for chess perhpas with few exceptions like Dubai Open ! It is a touristers paradise :)
|Dec-28-10|| ||turbo231: At its tallest point, the tower sways a total of 1.5 m (4.9 ft). One could get sea sick from the swaying at the top of that building! Over 2,700 feet high!|
I think in San Francisco after a building reaches a certain height they install a counter anti sway system so when the building sways in one direction this heavy disc is designed to move in the opposite direction thereby minimizing the amount of movement.
The article didn't mention such a system, but I suspect they have they it. And I wouldn't be surprise if they had several of them. That building is nearly twice as high as any building in the United States!
|Dec-28-10|| ||Troller: <turbo231: Well Naka has an event Jan 15-31 Tata Steel Chess what ever that is>|
That would be the obscure tournament of Wijk-ann-Zee (previously Corus or Hoogovens). Or were you merely joking, in which case you had me fooled?
|Dec-28-10|| ||HeMateMe: I used to work in the World Trade Center, before the 9/11 disaster. I was up on the 60s floors, and on a windy day you could feel the building groan, and sense some movement. |
There were temp workers who would spend a day on our floor, sense the building moving, and then tell the agency they refuse to come back to the clientele in the WTC!
|Dec-28-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: <HeHateMe>
I would love it. It must have been hard with 9/11, you lost some friends and co-workers I'd assume.
Were you still working there at the time of 9/11? What kept you out of work that day?
|Dec-28-10|| ||Bobwhoosta: Just to clarify, I would love working in a swaying building 60-stories above the earth. I wouldn't love building it, or standing on a girder at that height. I also wouldn't love being there during 9/11, nor what happened.|
Didn't think anyone would interpret me that way, just clarifying for posterity and infuenza.
|Dec-28-10|| ||HeMateMe: <Bob Chico> My last time there was about 1 1/2 years before 9/11. One of my former co workers died. The 60s floors were relatively safe in Tower 2, they were evacuated in time. But, one woman went back up to the floor to get her forgotten purse. Something happened, she never appeared again. She might have tried the elevators, and got trapped there.|
When the actual event occurred, I was on Canal street, about 1 mile above the WTC, in Manhattan. Every building below Canal street (a huge radius) was evacuated, all flights in the USA were cancelled, all planes grounded. I was living in the East Village at the time and New York state troops surrounded an area from 14th street all the way to lower Manhattan, a 4 mile x 2 mile grid. For a couple of days, I had to bring a piece of mail with me when I went out shopping, because when you returned to your area you needed to prove you lived below 14th street to get past the blockade.
a bit of overreaction, but it was nutts here for a few days.
|Dec-28-10|| ||turbo231: <Troller: That would be the obscure tournament of Wijk-ann-Zee (previously Corus or Hoogovens). Or were you merely joking, in which case you had me fooled?>|
I didn't know they changed the name of that tourney. Why don't people tell me these things?
|Dec-29-10|| ||researchj: Tata bought Corus and the tourney was part of the deal.|
|Dec-30-10|| ||turbo231: Naka's blog
I was roughly equal throughout the middlegame, but several serious inaccuracies with time pressure looming cost me dearly as I ended up in a worse endgame.
Perhaps I could have put up more resistance, but I would have probably just ended up suffering for a few more hours without the result being in doubt! Who wants to do that when you can go lose and eat some delicious Thai food at Blue Lagoon! After this loss, I was still on 2/4 and 5 points.
Naka is lazy he could have gotten a draw if he wasn't...........
probably would have loss...... that game was a DRAW!!!!!
|Dec-30-10|| ||rogge: Are you trying to win the "Most Disappointed of the Year" award?|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 80 OF 81 ·