< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 242 OF 242 ·
|Mar-31-13|| ||Daisuki: Here are updated odds based on a 30,000-tournament (1,680,000-game, including the results of round one through thirteen games already played) simulation:|
Win frequency Win frequency change since last simulation Win frequency change since the beginning of the tournament Player
95.06% +54.94% +37.41% Carlsen
4.94% −54.93% −8.82% Kramnik
0.00% −0.02% −12.04% Aronian
0.00% =0.00% −9.10% Radjabov
0.00% =0.00% −2.35% Grischuk
0.00% =0.00% −1.84% Ivanchuk
0.00% =0.00% −2.43% Svidler
0.00% =0.00% −0.83% Gelfand
(Caissa forbids me to have proper formatting here.)
As far as winning scores go, 9.5/14 or +5 had a 66.60% frequency, 9.0/14 or +4 had a 33.00% frequency, and 8.5/14 or +3 had a 0.40% frequency. Aronian now has no possible way of winning the tournament, leaving all odds to Carlsen and Kramnik. Carlsen catching up to Kramnik (without Kramnik losing, which would hurt Carlsen's tiebreak odds) was extremely important, as he is better on the second tiebreak, number of wins. The remaining meaningful games are Carlsen-Svidler and Ivanchuk-Kramnik.
So anyway, why does he have such high odds in my simulation? Well, for one thing Ivanchuk's current erratic play is not being simulated. Carlsen is also considered much stronger by the data than Kramnik, and Svidler is not considered especially stronger than Ivanchuk. Carlsen also has white and is very good with white, and Kramnik has black. The result of all this is that Carlsen is very unlikely to lose and has significant odds of winning. If he wins then Kramnik can do nothing to win the tournament. If he draws Kramnik has to win, but Kramnik is considered weaker than Carlsen and has black, so that's not considered to have particularly good odds. If Kramnik loses (and as black this is considered to have some possibility, although not a huge one) Carlsen wins the tournament. Anyway, my simulation is sensitive to remaining individual games, so that's that. ;p
|Apr-02-13|| ||Pravitel: I remember that we had an argument, when you expressed the belief that MC is psychologically stronger than Karpov or Kramnik. Now we have some more content on that issue as Carlsen just finished his most important tournament to date. I dare say that the end seems to offer some support for my side of the argument. As Magnus himself said, he had never experienced anything like the stress at the end of this tournament. And it showed, he lost 2/3, which could well be seen as melting under pressure. He played very well, when everything was going smoothly, but as the climax drew near, he cracked. |
As I said before, it is relatively easy to stay calm, cool and collected, when there isn't too much at stake. True test of character happens at the moment of greatest pressure. MC didn't excatly shine at that moment. And let's be honest, the pressure at this candidates were nothing comparing to the pressure that Karpov faced at the end of the 78 match against the defector and all the consequences that letting down a communist tyranny meant.
You said I should expect to get surprised, when I dared to question your stance on Carlsen's stronger psychological strength comparing to Karpov, who is not exactly a weakling on the area, but on the contrary, exceptionally strong. It seems it is you, who got surprised, and I, vindicated.
Looking forward to your squirming. =)
|Apr-03-13|| ||Shams: <Pravitel> Way too early to be claiming victory on that. Looked to me like Magnus just got tired, it happens. Fourteen rounds is a lot.|
|Apr-03-13|| ||Pravitel: Of course this is just a one case, even if rather significant. There will be chances for him to give better showings. But I don't think it is very convincing to put those losses solely on fatigue. He was the youngest and probably fittest contestant, yet the older Chucky and Svidler were in good enough strength to serve him cold steel. Also, if you don't have strong nerves, the stress can have even larger impact on physical stamina than normal.|
Infact, Im going to claim victory as long as Carlsen doesn't prove me wrong. It isn't default setting that Carlsen is stronger psychologically than Karpov. Frogbert made that silly claim before there was any real justification. Karpov showed his strength on that regard so many times and ways and in so dramatic situations, that it is unfair to put this kid above him without due showings. Anyway, time will give more meat for the debate, I'm sure of that.
|Apr-03-13|| ||Shams: <Pravitel> He's never shown nerves before. The idea that this tournament is a 'big one' distinct from all the other tournaments he's played in is mostly rubbish. You're seeing what you want to see.|
|Apr-03-13|| ||Daisuki: <KnightVBishop: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H13N...|
interview with magnus post candidates>
|Apr-04-13|| ||Pravitel: <Shams: He's never shown nerves before. The idea that this tournament is a 'big one' distinct from all the other tournaments he's played in is mostly rubbish. You're seeing what you want to see.>|
Well wether he has shown that weakness before or not, is somewhat up for debate. He lost for examble in a last round game against Shirov in Linares when draw would have been enough for first place.
Certainly this tournament was the biggest one. Hands down, no doubt about it. It ludicrous to call that obvious fact "rubbish". It is also pretty clear indication that you are not capable, for some reason, to look at this matter objectively. You are in denial and it is time to wake up. Carlsen himself as admitted that the pressure got to him.
I'm a Carlsen fan myself and this isn't meant as disrespect. He is in my opinion the greatest tournament player in history, apart from Kasparov. And I actually expect MC to surpass even him eventually.
|Apr-04-13|| ||Shams: <Pravitel> <Carlsen himself as admitted that the pressure got to him.>|
So what if he did? Your claim wasn't that the pressure got to Carlsen this time, but rather that he was psychologically prone to cracking. And that claim was and remains rubbish.
|Apr-04-13|| ||Pravitel: <So what if he did? Your claim wasn't that the pressure got to Carlsen this time, but rather that he was psychologically prone to cracking. And that claim was and remains rubbish.>|
You are wrong. My point was, that there is no reason to think that Carlsen is psychologically stronger than Karpov, as Frogbert stated. This tournament is just one case showing how unwarranted Frogbert's position was. Carlsen melted in the most important moment in his career, in the highest pressure moment. How you handle the situation when stakes are highest and pressure mounts, shows psychological strength(not that there aren't other situations where it manifests itself). This was the most illuminating moment in MC's career so far, in that context, and he didn't do well. It is your reading comprehension that is "rubbish".
|Apr-04-13|| ||Shams: <Pravitel> Well, I didn't read that far back, but I still think you're seeing what you want to see. |
<This tournament is just one case showing how unwarranted Frogbert's position was.>
What are the other ones?
|Apr-04-13|| ||solskytz: <Shams> I agree with your observation. He also confesses to be Carlsen's fan - with fans like this, who needs enemies?|
|Apr-04-13|| ||perfidious: <Pravitel>: Do you have the vaguest notion of the meaning of the phrase 'small sample size'?|
|Apr-16-13|| ||Tiggler: <perfidious: <Pravitel>: Do you have the vaguest notion of the meaning of the phrase 'small sample size'?>|
However small, the sample size is bigger than it was before the tournament.
|Apr-16-13|| ||Appaz: Have to agree with <Pravitel> on this one: the finish was not convincing at all. It's not a proof a psychological weakness, but certainly weakens the claim of the contrary.|
The WC match suddenly became a lot more exciting: pure chess strength may not be the most important deciding factor, and the mental robustness may play a bigger part than is to be expected.
|Apr-16-13|| ||perfidious: <Tiggler: However small, the sample size is bigger than it was before the tournament.>|
Of course, but as <Appaz> stated:
<....(T)he finish was not convincing at all. It's not a proof (of) psychological weakness, but certainly weakens the claim of the contrary.>
To what extent, or whether this is true? That remains to be seen.
|May-02-13|| ||northernfox: Here is a question for <Frogbert> or others who are knowledgeable about ELO:|
Can the ELO rating system allow, in some circumstances, for a rough ELO rating to be infered for one player, who is unrated, from the results of a match with another player, who has an ELO rating.
For example, (from a recent actual circumstance), players X and Y have an 18 game match at classical time controls, where the results in favour of player X are +10 -4 =4. If player Y is ELO 1550, can a rough estimate be inferred from these results for ELO of player X?
Thanks in advance for any information on this.
|May-02-13|| ||Blunderdome: It would be a very rough estimate. That X beat Y by some score is not a great predictor of how X will fare relative to Y in the general pool of players. Eighteen games is insufficient as well. Also -- were the games played under tournament conditions?|
My calculator says 1670, but that's not a number anyone should have any faith in.
|May-02-13|| ||northernfox: <Blunderdome> Thanks for the response. I am not surprised that there would be too little information in that one match to be very useful in inferring ELO.|
|May-13-13|| ||frogbert: Repost from the Norway Chess page:
<I believe I said that if we paid attention to the ELO rating formula, we could end <at least one silly debate>, namely whether or not ratings can be used to <predict> outcomes with some degree probability, something that was being denied (but not by you I don't believe).>
pbercker, what's silly is pointing to the Elo calculation formula in order to prove that the rating system was <created> with the <intended purpose> of being able to predict outcomes. And yet, this was the "silly debate" in question, if you would've paid close attention back then. I certainly <did deny> that the purpose of the rating system is to predict the outcome of chess games. You seemed (and seem) to think that the Elo calculation formula provided some argument in this debate, and you even labeled the idea of having said debate "silly".
I can explain to you why you were wrong (and still are wrong) if you *want* me to. But you think googling this or that makes you able to settle such a debate (while labeling it "silly"). Today I offered my player page to continue our discussion, but you insisted on continuing here. I'll make the same offer again: take it somewhere where we don't bother those who don't give a damn about this off topic discussion, and it *will* be possible for you to learn something. But first you need to realize that I can teach you something.
<You're quite right ... my apologies ... I allowed myself to get sucked into another useless argument with Frogbert>
I won't bother to "argue" with you. I've offered to explain to you why your ignorance of a topic I understand much better than you was annoying me back then, and you still seem to insist on being annoying instead of accepting my offer to explain why you were wrong then (which you still are). You make wrong assumptions all the time, like when you assumed that I put you on ignore back then. Stop making those wrong assumptions based on limited knowledge - it will hurt you in a context that <does> matter some day, unlike this one.
<Your evident lack of manners doesn't bother me too much, as I can overlook it.>
No, you can't. You've just proven multiple times that instead of ignoring my seemingly bad manners and accepting my offer to talk about this subject without any "audience" in a quiet place, you would rather make personal slights based on more of your wrong assumptions. Which kind of proves that I was right in the first place when I just left you and AgentRgent to your misunderstandings and misconceptions back then.
Yes, I can be arrogant, and yes I can easily give up on people who don't deserve being informed when they're misinformed, like you are if you write and believe the following:
<I said that if we paid attention to the ELO rating formula, we could end <at least one silly debate>>
No, it just proves that you've misunderstood the purpose of the Elo rating formula. You've googled some information and not been able to wrap your mind around what it actually means. Similarly, referring to a Chessbase article proves nothing, because Chessbase has posted loads and loads of provably false information ("garbage" in plain english) about ratings, inflation and so on for years and years now. Neither Chessbase nor those who write for them are infallible in any way, and regarding the topics I'm interested in (read: chess ratings) they've provided lots and lots of <opinions>, some well-founded and others utterly unfounded, from various authors and sources, which taken together provides a totally inconsistent and incoherent picture of what ratings are and can/should be used for.
That's not really any fault of Chessbase - it's a good thing that they let people with different views and opinions voice their opinions, but it totally destroys the idea that any single view/opinion posted on Chessbase on this topic bears any importance (beyond that of being someone's opinion) or that it can be taken as "proof" of anything. Chessbase is simply a commercial player in the chess market - they aren't truth seekers or researchers, and neither are most of their external contributors.
Short summary: you're welcome to respond to this post on my player page, quoting/responding to whatever in this post you like, but I <will not> continue this exchange here, on the Norway Chess tournament page.
And again, my player page is here: Hans Arild Runde
|May-13-13|| ||pbercker: The <intended purpose> of the ELO rating system is partly an historical question and settled accordingly. |
The <purpose> and the <intended purpose> need not be the same.
That its <use> is fundamentally <predictive> with some computed probability is absolutely unarguable and was indisputably at least <part> of its <intended purpose> and part of it <current> purpose.
That <ratings> is <correlated> with <intrinsic strength> is well known. This is because <intrinsic strength> is causally related to <performance> and <ratings> are a record of that performance. As such, ratings are an <indirect> measure of <strength> and generally <intended> as such.
I generally disagree with at least 90% of what AGENTRGENT says, and I am predisposed to dislike his style of arguing as it too often veers towards nonsense and illogic. However, in a rare moment of logical lucidity he managed to summarize the entire <silly> debate quite well:
<AgentRgent: <frogbert: your description of ratings as mainly a predictive tool was and is completely wrong> I said that Elo's intention was to design a system that could reasonably predict who would win between two players. Ratings were designed to be a predictive tool using past performance as the guide. I agreed with you then and now that their failure to be perfectly accurate is not a "failure" of the system. I suppose that the main difference between us is the idea that Rating=Strength. Which honestly I don't think is really a difference of thought more than a slight difference in how we express ourselves.>
Not only is he correct, but he admirably ended by giving you the benefit of the doubt, but which only belatedly I see you did not (and do not) deserve.
End of discussion.
|May-14-13|| ||frogbert: Ok, you are a lost case, pbercker. Beyond my help, anyway.|
"End of discussion" - that's hilarious, but true. I won't bother when you think you've got the answer and it's patently wrong. Let's see if I change my mind after some time. Continuing past your "end of discussion" now is simply not worth my time.
|May-17-13|| ||frogbert: Procrastinating, putting off writing the round 8 report because I'm tired... And postponing it really helps. ;o)|
|May-18-13|| ||frogbert: Ok. So long, and thanks for all the fish!|
|May-18-13|| ||Pulo y Gata: <frogbert> Don't panic.|
|May-19-13|| ||parmetd: Love that Douglas Adams quote :)
Just stopped by your page to give you a lovely quote that you can use again and again :)
"Luck favors those who do not depend on it nor need it."
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 242 OF 242 ·