|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
May-07-12
 | | nimh: I live in Europe. It's the first time ever I hear about someone called Willie Mays... Had you used Jordan and his 37.1 points in 86/87 season as an example, I'd have understood perfectly. :) I'm not even sure if his abilities at that time would have been sufficient to break the 30 pts barrier today. The level of defense and players have improved greatly. 25 years is an awfully long time. |
 |
May-07-12
 | | Shams: <nimh> I don't know much about basketball but my friends who do usually say that Jordan would put up even better numbers today due to rule changes limiting defensive players. |
|
May-08-12
| | nimh: The actual effect of the rule changes should be clear if we compare the average number of points after and prior. And we shouldn't count out other factors either. |
|
May-08-12
 | | playground player: <nimh> Oops! Sorry about that. Willie Mays was the greatest baseball player of my generation (some would say it was Mickey Mantle, or Hank Aaron--but ignore them). His place in baseball was similar to Michael Jordan's place in basketball. But I don't suppose American baseball of the 1950s and 60s holds much interest for Europeans. In any sport or game, it's always hard to compare players of different eras because so much changes. At least chess hasn't changed the rules, as has been done in baseball and football. Meanwhile, I enjoy your chess research, even though I can't understand your methodology. Computers, I'm afraid, will always be a mystery to me. |
|
May-08-12
| | nimh: Thanks once more for kind words!
At least I can proudly declare that I know at least a few things about someone called Babe Rush... :) I think he was quite good player, wasn't he? :) |
|
May-09-12
| | playground player: <nimh> George "Babe" Ruth was, quite simply, the best baseball player ever. Had he lived in ancient times, the Greeks or Romans would have made him a god, like Hercules. But he died a long time before I was born, so of course I never saw him play. All I have seen are the grainy old photos and newsreel clips... and the incredible statistics. If you ever get interested in baseball, <Phony Benoni's> chessforum is a good place to be. (No, he didn't pay me for that plug.) |
|
May-09-12
| | nimh: I've watched some baseball games several times on TV and played a computer game. And before that a NES baseball game. But unfortunately they haven't been enough to stimulate the interest of the game. |
|
May-11-12
| | playground player: <nimh> At one time, not so long ago, I was virtually a walking baseball encyclopedia. But then they made changes in the game, and the seats that my wife and I used to occupy in Yankee Stadium went from $15 a game to $272 a game. Yowch! What with all the changes, and mining the public for money, I don't pay much attention to baseball anymore. I don't think anyone can just "get into" baseball without having been brought up on it. Knowing the history and folklore and tradition of the game, the personal abilities and histories of the current players--I don't see how baseball can be enjoyed without that. But, like chess, and much more so than most other sports, baseball lends itself to computer analysis. In fact, contemporary baseball is intimately involved with computer analysis--no team manager would take a step without it. |
|
May-11-12
| | nimh: When was that? It's pretty hard to believe, a change of ownership, I suppose? It surprises me that games involving physical activity can be subjected to computer analysis. What methodology do they use and what does such analysis describe exactly? |
|
May-12-12
| | playground player: <nimh> If you're interested in this subject, rather than have me give you an inadequate answer, I suggest you talk to <Jim Bartle> or <Phony Benoni.> They understand "Sabermetrics" (the term invented for the study of advanced baseball statistics) a lot better than I do. The thing about baseball that lends itself so beautifully to computer analysis is that the data base is very large, and the activities on the field can be easily described by statistics. Some of these statistics go back 100 years or more. A lot of things happen in a basketball game that are not measured statistically--picks, box-outs, good passes that don't immediately produce a score, most defense, etc. But in baseball, hitting, pitching, and fielding are beautifully translated into numbers. So if you know, for instance, that over the last five years, Joe Gesundheit has batted .200 against pitcher Leo Cafone--100 hits in 500 at-bats: 70 singles, 20 doubles, 1 triple, and 9 home runs--you can make a pretty accurate prediction of what will happen the next time Joe bats against Leo. Plus you have the figures on exactly what kind of outs he made, the 400 times he didn't get a hit... and so on. I hope this helps. |
|
May-13-12
| | nimh: I read the sabermetrics article on wiki. It's a very interesting subject, and I think I'll devote some time to study it more closely.
Let me ask one more question, is that useful for making cross-era comparisons as well? Would sabermetrics be useful for predicting e.g. what anyone's stats with Babe Ruth's abilities and build were today? |
|
May-14-12
| | playground player: <nimh> That's a good question, and I'm not sure I understand the subject well enough to give you a good answer--so please don't consider anything I say authoritative. But... Cross-era comparisons in baseball should be statistically valid, provided the data is abundant and accurate. Happily, in baseball, that is very much the case. We have much the same data base for the 1927 season as we have for 2011. Up to a certain point, baseball history has been meticulously kept. Thus it was possible, for instance, for the Strat-O-Matic Game Co. to reconstruct the 1927 season in minute detail. (This is not an ad for Strat-O-Matic. I'm just using it as an example.) It's the nature of the Strat-O-Matic game that you could, if you wanted to, take Babe Ruth from the 1927 Yankees and make him a member of, say, the 1968 Yankees. Suddenly he has to hit in an era notable for overwhelming pitching and better than usual defense. If you play him for a full 1968 season, his final statistics will differ from his 1927 stats. I haven't actually done this particular experiment, so that's about all I can say. I think you'll find that baseball has the data available to allow you to make valid cross-era comparisons. |
|
May-15-12
| | nimh: Thanks, I must make myself more familiar with the sabermetrics before I can take any attempts to make comparisons. Some time ago I explained which factors constitute the conditions of play and influence the accuracy of moves in chess, apart from skills. 1) thinking time
2) difficulty of positions
3) the extent of practical play
4) psychological issues
5) health
6) conditions in the venue of play
7) tiredness
Before this can be extended to other sports, a new factor must be introduced. 9) the quality of equipment
This is an interesting picture http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped... Doesn't it look like it's easier to bat successfully with the rightmost bat, compared to the leftmost one that was used by Ruth? :) And the <difficulty of positions> must be renamed <difficulty of game situations> So, we have the following system:
1) the quality of equipment
2) thinking time
3) difficulty of game situations
4) the extent of practical play
5) psychological issues
6) health
7) conditions in the venue of play
8) fatigue
To find the playing skills, one must determine the relative importance of each factor and substract from the absolute accuracy of play. I assume sabermetrics describes quite well absolute accuracy of play, and it also has taken care of some methods for describing difficulty, e.g. the dependence of batting percentage from pitching speed and style. The last four factors are very difficult to take into consideration, and thinking time is practically nonexistent. Is it possible to play practically in baseball? Make inferior choices to take andavntage of human imperfections and particular style of the other team to maximize results? |
|
May-15-12
| | playground player: <nimh> In answer to your last question, yes, of course--it's done all the time. For instance, in certain situations, you may steal a base, or bunt, whatever, against a certain pitcher, catcher, or manager when otherwise it would be bad tactics to do so. It's part of successful baseball to exploit the other team's weaknesses. That includes psychological weaknesses. As for batting right-handed vs. batting left-handed: well, usually the batter gets a statistical boost when he bats on the opposite site of the plate from the pitcher's arm. So lefty hitters normally do better against right-handed pitchers, and vice-versa. I bat and throw right-handed. When I taught myself to bat left-handed as well, I found it easier to hit low pitches but harder to hit high pitches. Otherwise, there really isn't that much difference in difficulty between batting righty and lefty. Many naturally right-handed players always bat left-handed, although they certainly can't throw left-handed. It's all a matter of what you're used to. Batting lefty is nowhere near as hard as doing a lot of other things left-handed. |
|
May-17-12
| | nimh: I have no idea what to say in reply, but it was interesting to read :) |
|
May-17-12
| | playground player: <nimh> Looking at my post again, I can see how it might have seemed like gibberish to you. Sorry! I forget that baseball simply is not part of your culture. When I was a boy, America was steeped in baseball; it truly was the national pastime. It isn't anymore, thanks to various fooleries committed by the persons who run baseball. But in its heyday--ah! it was beautiful! Meanwhile, you'll just have to trust me when I say that batting left-handed is not that hard for a naturally right-handed person. It's just a matter of habit. |
|
May-17-12
| | nimh: I've actually seen several baseball games on an american channel, so I think I understood not much less than 100% of what you said. :) Yes, since the bat is held with two hands, theoretically it's the same, the only thing that matters is habit. What's the no 1 sports today in USA? I guess it must be NFL? |
|
May-18-12
| | playground player: <nimh> Your guess is right on the money: football it is. I have mostly lost interest in big-time sports. I find them overproduced, overcommercialized, overhyped, and just far, far inferior to what they used to be. I remain attached to them as they used to be, so baseball lore and history will always delight me. |
|
| Apr-04-13 | | The Rocket: Your rybka analysis link don't work anymore nimh. |
|
Apr-05-13
| | nimh: Yes, it expired. I'll soon set up a new web page where all the papers I've made will be available. The new address will be www.chessanalysis.ee. Once it's done, I'll notify in my forum. |
|
| Apr-06-13 | | The Rocket: Rybka 3 is quite dated now and only scores around 22% vs Houdini in head-to head. An analysis with H3 would be an interesting comparison. |
|
Apr-07-13
 | | OhioChessFan: A couple notes on some conversations:
I am a rare person in that I throw left handed and bat right handed. I have no idea why. As to Rybka 3, I will note in past team games, people would refuse to consider the possibility the team could find better moves than the extant version of Rybka. I think it's safe to say that it <is> possible to do so, statstically veriable possible, and there will be room for improvement for the near future anyway. |
|
Apr-07-13
| | nimh: Differences in strength in engine rating lists typically are much larger than they would be in human rating lists. The increase in the quality analysis would not be as noticeable as it seems at first glance. But on principle you are right, if one were to start an analysis project, he'd be expected to use the best engine available. I currently have so many unpublished data made with R3 that needs to be worked theough and realized in a study that a new project will be out of question in the near future. Before that I also need to buy a new computer, what I have now is already 3 years old. I think I won't be ready to start before late 2014. With a 3-4 times more powerful CPU, a similar inrcrease in time spent on a move, a 100-150 elo better engine, improved methodology, especially comcerning difficulty of positions and practical play, we are in for making a great leap in understanding of how good was the standard of play in earlier times and the rate it developed till today! <OCF>
I'm right handed, but shuffle cards left handed holding them in right hand :) I' don't believe that an engine-unassisted team could beat a modern top engine on top hardware running incessantly for 24-48 hrs, but for sure there are a lot of positions where such a team would demonstrate better judgement. |
|
Apr-07-13
| | OhioChessFan: I deal cards right handed. Most things you grab, I do so right handed. Pop a Shot, I am equally proficient. Basketball, I am only left handed. I think a team could beat a modern engine, but the best chance would be to have a group of perhaps 20 voting. |
|
May-14-13
| | nimh: My homepage is done.
http://www.chessanalysis.ee/chessan... |
|
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 20 OF 20 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
|
 |
Bobby Fischer Tribute Shirt
|
|
|
