4 ms·

>For one, it's not the case that overall white and black win 50% of the time each. He addresses that (first-move advantage from white moving first) in the pare

>For one, it's not the case that overall white and black win 50% of the time each. He addresses that (first-move advantage from white moving first) in the parenthesis after that same sentence: "After extensive experimentation, they realize this: 50% of the time, the white player wins and 50% of the time, the black player wins (we'll ignore draws and any first-move advantage for the example). "

praestigiare 6y ago
Acknowledging is not addressing, and in this case the statement amounts to "they realize this: ... (they would not realize this)." It is either too flawed to make the point intended, or illustrates a flaw in the underlying argument.
mannykannot 6y ago
It is also the case that if you take into account which pair of players are competing, the random hypothesis is not even close. The author cannot have it both ways: either the aliens cannot distinguish the game from an equal-odds random process, or they can.
edgarvaldes 6y ago
>50% of the time, the white player wins... we'll ignore... any first-move advantage for the example Really hard to parse the meaning. ¿White wins 50% of the time if we ignore that occasions where white wins because it has the first move? But white always has the first move.
seanhunter 6y ago
When I look at a master database, White wins about 33% of the time, black wins about 25% and the rest of the games are draws. The aliens would have to be pretty terrible at statistics to ignore draws and first mover advantage when they are clearly extremely important. It is difficult to relate to an analogy which is so divergent from the basic facts.
- jjk166 6y ago
  So instead of a coin toss it's a 12 sided dice where 4 sides are white wins, 3 sides are black wins, and 5 sides are draw. Changing the weights of your random number generator doesn't lead to a better understanding of how chess works.
  - seanhunter 6y ago
    That was one example of how the author proposes an extremely inadequate analogy. The fact that you can propose an improvement so easily demonstrates this. It's also very clearly a problem that it ignores player skill, time control and all sorts of other factors that would be basic to any kind of model claiming to have power in predicting chess outcomes.
    - jjk166 6y ago
      > It's also very clearly a problem that it ignores player skill, time control and all sorts of other factors that would be basic to any kind of model claiming to have power in predicting chess outcomes. This was exactly the point the author was trying to convey. The simplest model of chess with the fewest assumptions is that it is just a random number generator with no dependence on any factors, but this is a bad model, and the "fringe" alien who assumes there is some deeper, hidden structure to the game is correct to do so. If it helps, consider the alien's sport of glorfball. We've never seen a game played, but we know that approximately 50% of the time the Aberdorfs win, and approximately 50% of the time the Gloophbahorps win. Based on this data, is it reasonable to conclude that glorfball is nothing but a game of chance?
      - lmm 6y ago
        It's reasonable to model glorfball as a game of chance for now, and aim to develop a more detailed understanding either by gathering more data (Can we correlate the occasions when the Aberdorfs win and the occasions when the Gloophbahorps win with anything else? If we can't observe glorfball games directly, we look for ways to find out about them indirectly, or outside conditions that might possibly affect glorfball). It's not reasonable to posit that glorfball results must be driven by cross-referencing the Da Vinci Code against a message written on the back of the Declaration of Independence, which seems to be what the article is advocating for.

praestigiare 6y ago

Acknowledging is not addressing, and in this case the statement amounts to "they realize this: ... (they would not realize this)." It is either too flawed to make the point intended, or illustrates a flaw in the underlying argument.

mannykannot 6y ago

It is also the case that if you take into account which pair of players are competing, the random hypothesis is not even close. The author cannot have it both ways: either the aliens cannot distinguish the game from an equal-odds random process, or they can.

edgarvaldes 6y ago

>50% of the time, the white player wins... we'll ignore... any first-move advantage for the example Really hard to parse the meaning. ¿White wins 50% of the time if we ignore that occasions where white wins because it has the first move? But white always has the first move.

seanhunter 6y ago

When I look at a master database, White wins about 33% of the time, black wins about 25% and the rest of the games are draws. The aliens would have to be pretty terrible at statistics to ignore draws and first mover advantage when they are clearly extremely important. It is difficult to relate to an analogy which is so divergent from the basic facts.

jjk166 6y ago
So instead of a coin toss it's a 12 sided dice where 4 sides are white wins, 3 sides are black wins, and 5 sides are draw. Changing the weights of your random number generator doesn't lead to a better understanding of how chess works.
- seanhunter 6y ago
  That was one example of how the author proposes an extremely inadequate analogy. The fact that you can propose an improvement so easily demonstrates this. It's also very clearly a problem that it ignores player skill, time control and all sorts of other factors that would be basic to any kind of model claiming to have power in predicting chess outcomes.
  - jjk166 6y ago
    > It's also very clearly a problem that it ignores player skill, time control and all sorts of other factors that would be basic to any kind of model claiming to have power in predicting chess outcomes. This was exactly the point the author was trying to convey. The simplest model of chess with the fewest assumptions is that it is just a random number generator with no dependence on any factors, but this is a bad model, and the "fringe" alien who assumes there is some deeper, hidden structure to the game is correct to do so. If it helps, consider the alien's sport of glorfball. We've never seen a game played, but we know that approximately 50% of the time the Aberdorfs win, and approximately 50% of the time the Gloophbahorps win. Based on this data, is it reasonable to conclude that glorfball is nothing but a game of chance?
    - lmm 6y ago
      It's reasonable to model glorfball as a game of chance for now, and aim to develop a more detailed understanding either by gathering more data (Can we correlate the occasions when the Aberdorfs win and the occasions when the Gloophbahorps win with anything else? If we can't observe glorfball games directly, we look for ways to find out about them indirectly, or outside conditions that might possibly affect glorfball). It's not reasonable to posit that glorfball results must be driven by cross-referencing the Da Vinci Code against a message written on the back of the Declaration of Independence, which seems to be what the article is advocating for.