|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Sep-21-08 | | frogbert: alexmagnus, do i understand you correctly if i say that the numbers in your top-25 are calibrated against the "july 2000-level" of places 3 to 20? can you describe/demonstrate briefly the algorithm you used? thank you. :o) |
|
Sep-22-08
 | | alexmagnus: <frogbert> I just did what Sonas described as his "calibrating", only with FIDE ratings (and yes, it is calibrated against the July 2000 ratings). Though here calibrating is less precise than in Sonas' case, as Chessmetrics lists appear monthly and the FIDE lists only once in 3 months.
The algorithm is simple: one takes the list and calculates the average rating of players ranked 3 to 20. Then one takes the list which comes directly after it (i.e. in case of FIDE's list the list which appeared 3 months later) and calibrates it so that the average rating of <the same 18 players> remains the same (as in 3 months not much happens - some players imrpove, some decline, but generally the average rating of those 18 should be about the same in 3 months). And so on, always using two nearby lists - of course it are always different 18 players, namley those ones which are ranked 3 to 20 in the earlier of the two lists taken. I doubt whether the method is effective though. I tried it just to see what happens. Sometimes one of the 18 players taken of two lists declines so mighty that he makes an impression of 3-4 points deflation without the ratings becoming objectively deflated (Bareev's and Navara's sudden fall are here notable). On the other hand, maybe it equalizes because of improving players (like Carlsen f.x.). Just for fun on each list I calculated both normal and calibrated average of this group (players ranked 3 to 20) on each list. Not surprisingly, the calibrated average went monotonously (though not strictly monotonously, there are many occasions of it remaining constant for 4-5 lists) upwards, with only exception: immediately after Kasparov's retierement the calibrated average went down by 6 points. |
|
| Sep-22-08 | | Klas Recke: <The inflation in economy is mainly based on the uneven relation of the amount of money towards the "amount of goods" (in money, i.e. aggregatd price of supplied goods). I didn't say "banks", I said "the" bank, meaning the national bank, which is AFAIK responsible for the money supply. By the way, it is possible to make money supply and production simultaneous - just not in the market economy. Indeed, that is what happens in the plan economy, given the plans being always exactly fulfilled...>
I´ll take this to your forum instead. I agree in what your saying but I just wanted to make clear that private banks is actually creating money in form of debt when you agree to a loan from the bank. The money really does not exist until you sign an agreement to pay mortgage. A bank has about 8% of the money they loan you, the rest is "made up". So basically banks lend you money that don´t exist but you have to pay back every penny with interest through hard work. Maybe you know everything about this but when I realized this I could hardly believe it.
What it has to do with chess is a different matter.
Cheers |
|
| Sep-23-08 | | frogbert: <calibrates it so that the average rating of <the same 18 players> remains the same> alexmagnus that the step i wondered about, really. this sort of is "similar" to how i in the calculations i've made on fide lists after 2000 have compared <the same> (active) players in two different lists with each other. and interestingly, those calculations, while yet incomplete, seem to suggest a similar development of "inflation", but based on datasets of size 20 000 and above (not 18 players). :o) |
|
Sep-24-08
| | alexmagnus: <frogbert> If you get a similar pattern, how would you explain the deflationary tendencies in the first half of 2000s? And why does it go up now? |
|
| Oct-03-08 | | Super Chess Man: Your song is the wackox ! |
|
| Oct-09-08 | | amadeus: <alexmagnus: I need FIDE top-50 or better even top-100 lists since the very first 1970 list!> There is some material here: http://www.mark-weeks.com/chess/rat... I am posting the top 100 lists here: http://fidelists.blogspot.com/
-- within a week or two, I'll provide a .xls file. |
|
| Nov-07-08 | | timhortons: <alexmagnus> i know icc is an institution, whether nakamura is there or not wont affect icc at all, i just got aggravated by the post . chessgames.com should enforce a one handle per user policy so double like that could not kibitz, it well result in responsible kibitzing and more credibility to the site.
i dont know why it is only me who is selling these idea. <frog> what is youre stand on one handle per user policy for these site? |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | angslo: <slomarko: <eh... he's done nothing to deserve the condecending remarks, i mean - and lots to deserve being treated with some respect.> not really. he always "jumps" on everything that i write plus in the past he acused me of being like a medieval fanatic. plus he's 1500 rated. say what you want but that means that for me his views just don't have as much weight as mine.> hmmmm. this is the first time <slomarko> so candidly (though unwittingly ) admitted what was apparent to me for quite some time - that he has something very personal against <alexmagnus> not good
augalv and frog correctly pointed out that slo is being arrogant and disrespectful towards alexmagnus and rolfo. NOT GOOD. BUT I AM SURE EVENTUALLY SLO WILL GROW UP :)
AH! i AM AN INCORRIGABLE OPTIMIST. :)
HEHEHE |
|
Dec-23-08
| | alexmagnus: As long as <slo> doesn't cross a certain line, it's ok. In a debate insults are usually considered a bad argument but generally they are allowed. |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | angslo: <alexmagnus: As long as <slo> doesn't cross a certain line, it's ok. In a debate insults are usually considered a bad argument but generally they are allowed.> hmmmm.
I notice 3 important points here and i will appreciate if you will please clarify on them, <alexmagnus> 1)<frog> seems to have objected to <slo> talking to you in 'condescending' manner but you disagree with 'frog' and seem to be ok with the 'style' of slo.
right?
2)you think that <slo>'s debate technique is bad because he resorts to insults. right?
3)what is that 'certain line' which you don't want <slo> to cross? will you please be specific? thanks :) |
|
Dec-23-08
| | alexmagnus: 1) I agree with <frog> on that point but I don't care. If he cannot tell his opinion without arrogance, let him be arrogant. Arrogance in a debate is like aggressive play in chess - it may be good but it hurts badly if it gets overstretched - the defender wins without making a single attacking move ;) 2)Yes. Insults generally indicate one of three:
a)lack of arguments
b)lack of confidence in correctness of own arguments
c)arrogance
In <slo>'s case it looks like mix of a and c. He didn't bring out a single argument, pointing out my low chess rating instead - and insulting "nearby". Well, when the three-year-old Blaise Pascal said the sum on the accountant sheet of his father was incorrect, he was not a professional accountant too:) . Still, that sum <was> incorrect, i.e. Pascal was right :). 3)That line would be either telling <nothing> except insults or violating the first posting guideline here in a grave way - say telling some words usually rarely printed uncensored. |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | angslo: cogent as usual, thank you <alexmagnus> :) |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | slomarko: <In <slo>'s case it looks like mix of a and c. He didn't bring out a single argument, pointing out my low chess rating instead - and insulting "nearby".> comming from a mouth of person who compared me with religious fanatics of the middle age... i suggest you shut up on the topic of insults and arrogance. |
|
| Dec-23-08 | | angslo: alexmagnus, i have heard that anger can give heart attack and many other diseases. So, i especially learn from the way you are always calm. However, if the people around me are angry, that also affects health of my heart - i recently watched 'american history x' and the same thing norton's 'work partner' in the prison says to norton and norton starts working 'nice and easy' after that and starts behaving in pleasing manner. what do you think , alex? if people around you are being @#$%*@!s does that affect health of your heart? thnx :) |
|
Dec-24-08
| | alexmagnus: <slo> My comparison was based on an argument. Just like the mentioned fanatic you seemed to be blind to my arguments - at least you didn't reapond to <any> of those arguments, as if they didn't exist at all. It was meant not as an insult but as a gesture of trying to make the argument move on. If it continued the way it did, it would be pointless to continue it. You, on the other hand, just insult for the sake of insult. Without any ground. And that in polish, so that others cannot understand it. <angslo> No idea if it affects heatlth of my heart, but I doubt. I' notice if it did. I actually think my teenage debates gave me immunity against anger, be it my anger or that of those around me. |
|
| Dec-24-08 | | angslo: <<angslo> No idea if it affects heatlth of my heart, but I doubt. I' notice if it did. I actually think my teenage debates gave me immunity against anger, be it my anger or that of those around me.> yeah, that is a very valuable skill to have - to be calm/peaceful/functional even if ur ecology/environment is turbulent/negative :) Merry Christmas, <alexmagnus> :) |
|
Dec-24-08
| | alexmagnus: Thx, same to you (and "even" to <slo> hehe. No, <slo> , you are not an enemy, you just happen to always have an opinion contrary to mine). |
|
| Dec-24-08 | | angslo: <alexmagnus: <slo> My comparison was based on an argument. Just like the mentioned fanatic you seemed to be blind to my arguments - at least you didn't reapond to <any> of those arguments, as if they didn't exist at all. It was meant not as an insult but as a gesture of trying to make the argument move on. If it continued the way it did, it would be pointless to continue it. You, on the other hand, just insult for the sake of insult. Without any ground. And that in polish, so that others cannot understand it.> yeah, i remember that. the way it occured to me was not that you were insulting <slo> or calling him someone like medieval religious fanatic.
I understood that you were referring only to that particular argument of slomarko. It appeared to me that u meant slo was impervious to your arguments kind of just like Galilio thing - Galilio gave all the clinching evidences to medieval religious fanatic about earth revolving around sun but..... |
|
| Dec-27-08 | | slomarko: <alexmagnus: <slo> My comparison was based on an argument. Just like the mentioned fanatic you seemed to be blind to my arguments - at least you didn't reapond to <any> of those arguments, as if they didn't exist at all. It was meant not as an insult but as a gesture of trying to make the argument move on. If it continued the way it did, it would be pointless to continue it.> one does not need to respond to totaly invalid arguments. its like as if you'd say that the sun is green and then demands i respond to such mad argument. <You, on the other hand, just insult for the sake of insult. Without any ground.> no i insult when there is a need to insult. you can call it "educational insult" if you want. look for example <angslo> before was an unbelievable village fool. now i manage to educate him somewhat and i also fixed his trolling a bit. but of course there is still a lot of work with him so a lot of educational insults are still needed to achieve his growing. |
|
| Dec-27-08 | | angslo: <<You, on the other hand, just insult for the sake of insult. Without any ground.> no i insult when there is a need to insult. you can call it "educational insult" if you want. look for example <angslo> before was an unbelievable village fool. now i manage to educate him somewhat and i also fixed his trolling a bit. but of course there is still a lot of work with him so a lot of educational insults are still needed to achieve his growing.> hmm! am i reading it right, <alexmagnus>?
<slo> insults me to educate me but he also insults <alexmagnus> to educate <alexmagnus>. interesting! now i need education because he thinks i am villagefool. why does he need to educate you, <alexmagnus> ? will you help me with this question, <alex> ? thanks :) |
|
| Dec-27-08 | | slomarko: an educator educates to raise the level of education in uneducated people. |
|
Dec-28-08
| | alexmagnus: <slo> I doubt your level of education is much higher than mine. At I doubt it was higher than mine when you were 21. And my arguments are far from invalid. Just because somethin <looks> absurd it doesn't mean it <is> absurd. I mean the cmparison of chess with other soprts in discussion where there is nothing chess-specific, just pure competition theory. |
|
Dec-28-08
| | alexmagnus: As for "the sun is green" I actually know a response to this question: I'd ask the argumenter for the <definition of "green">. It actually may be that he calls the red or yellow (now, is the sun red or yellow? depends..)colour "green" or hat he has a different perception of colour (what people call colour-blindness but what actually is quite normal, just unusual). By the way, one cannot educate by insult. The only thing one can do by insult is... insult. A person, even if actually corresponding t the insult, won't be wiser if he knows he corresponds to the insult. A weak person doesn't become stronger from being told that he is weak :). Even more - it will prevent him from pursuing to become stronger - because he will accept his weakness. But your insults are not even justified. "Stupider than a hedgehog"? Well, I doubt a hedgehog can do what I can. I also don't think you have valid sources about measuring the intelligence of a hedgehog. |
|
| Dec-28-08 | | slomarko: <But your insults are not even justified. "Stupider than a hedgehog"? Well, I doubt a hedgehog can do what I can. I also don't think you have valid sources about measuring the intelligence of a hedgehog.> its a slang expression for crying out loud. and used because it sounds cool. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 5 OF 57 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
