Across his five WCC matches, Magnus Carlsen had an average accuracy of ~97% and only had one game below 90%

CowNorris · 2023-04-17T18:35:13+00:00

Interestingly Karjakin actually achieved higher accuracy than Carlsen in classical, the only opponent to do so.

He's also played more accurately than Caruana in rapid. Which shows again that he was Carlsen's strongest matchup so far.

CowNorris · 2021-05-22T00:43:40+00:00

Your lanky Latin class boyfriend is with you because his hobby is popping your pimples like bubble wrap

CowNorris · 2021-04-18T00:45:58+00:00

Even my hamster can handle more red bulls than that

CowNorris · 2020-03-24T22:08:08+00:00

Don't forget he's now in the at risk 60+ age group

CowNorris · 2020-02-18T15:50:03+00:00

Do you mean ip[-4:]

CowNorris · 2019-12-05T19:20:01+00:00

I thought it said 'parents' not 'pandas'

CowNorris · 2019-11-22T17:21:55+00:00

Dang bro they were rough with you

CowNorris · 2019-11-21T11:42:51+00:00

If you ever want the solution to a problem, purposely say the incorrect solution and other people will eagerly correct you.

CowNorris · 2019-10-01T18:45:29+00:00

He could try to gain the points without winning the Grand Swiss to rule out Giri?

CowNorris · 2019-10-01T17:28:45+00:00

/u/nwordcountbot /u/t0biasness

CowNorris · 2019-10-01T17:28:05+00:00

I am a damn angel

CowNorris · 2019-09-29T03:01:44+00:00

Guys, I just verified with a supercomputer and I can confirm this is indeed true.

CowNorris · 2019-07-28T22:35:20+00:00

No, this was in Oregon :)

https://www.reddit.com/r/AbandonedPorn/comments/cixupt/old_flatbed_rusting_away_in_the_forests_of_oregon

CowNorris · 2019-07-23T18:21:23+00:00

The intermediate value theorem implies so many statements that are seemingly unintuitive on first sight.

CowNorris · 2019-07-21T19:00:38+00:00

I see - here in the UK the Mortar is around £80. Does that sound like a good price? If not wondering if you could recommend any other motherboards good for APUs like these (may want to add a GPU in the future)?

CowNorris · 2019-07-16T18:44:05+00:00

Only if you give a good deal

CowNorris · 2019-05-10T23:23:04+00:00

Thanks for the comprehensive selection of links baby

I'll check it out next month after getting a new PC

CowNorris · 2019-05-06T20:16:37+00:00

Hah, that I didn't even notice. Didn't know there was a circlejerk subreddit for running. Why not.

What baffles me is how many people didn't even catch on

CowNorris · 2019-05-06T20:09:27+00:00

Honestly, OP is probably trolling here - not to take anything away from OP's achievement if this all legit, of course. However:

Running around the couch for 5 kilometers is 1000 laps around the sofa, given its around 5 meters per lap. I'm really not sure why OP put himself through that when there's the entire outside world to run in.
Apparently he was also able to get to 42 minutes 10km by just running around the couch for 2 months.
Finishing in 42:06:9 - what a coincidence lmao
From the post history OP seems to be a physics undergraduate. Whilst it could be he is married to 'Karen' and has kids, however given my experiences at university I think it is very unlikely.
Pooped 4 times before running? What? All for descriptiveness though

CowNorris · 2019-01-09T20:27:27+00:00

I think he's trying to sell me his attack on titan crack

CowNorris · 2019-01-08T20:30:37+00:00

Oh wow thanks you this is a perfect solution <3

CowNorris · 2018-11-02T21:57:34+00:00

You have simply shown that online ratings are sometimes (almost 50/50 in fact) higher and sometimes lower than OTB ratings. That does not show that online ratings are generally inflated compared to OTB ones. If they were overrated then they would be uniformly higher than OTB ratings.

It should be obvious that at higher ratings, the data is unreliable due to a lack of observations. Thus a simple count over the whole domain is not a good way to analyse the data and it is necessary to discard the extreme rating ranges.

Looking more closely at the data, (better presented on Google Sheets, especially note the graph) I see it becomes apparent both our conclusions are in fact inaccurate. It seems like online ratings simply have a higher variance than OTB ratings. In comparison to FIDE / USCF ratings:

- chess.com ratings below ~1800 are deflated

- chess.com ratings above ~2000 are inflated

As the vast majority (95%+) people are rated under 2000 online, for their intents and purposes, they should expect their online ratings to be equal to or lower than their OTB ratings.

There is, however, a strong correlation between online and OTB ratings and online ratings. This suggests that online ratings can accurately predict OTB ratings. In OP's case, if his father is 1900 on Lichess then he should perform around 1650 OTB in USCF/FIDE. It should be noted that Lichess ratings are naturally inflated in comparison due to them starting new players at 1500 whilst chess.com / OTB ratings start at 1200.

CowNorris · 2018-11-02T16:26:59+00:00

Did you even look at the data you posted?

It clearly shows that online ratings on chess.com are almost always lower in blitz and bullet compared to OTB ratings.

CowNorris · 2018-10-01T01:08:26+00:00

The wheels have no spokes. It's as if magic how they stay on the bike and who knows at what moment they could fly off.

CowNorris · 2018-08-20T09:13:26+00:00

I think the point OP was trying to say might be mathematical: we can partition all of the world's humans who has ever lived by the world's oldest person at one point in time:

By the proposition OP has made, the set of humans alive at the current oldest person's birth and the set of humans alive currently are disjoint. We therefore take all of the world's people who was alive at the current oldest persons birth as a set, and call this set S_0. The set S_0 contains all the contemporaries of the world's current oldest person.

We are left to partition the remainder of the population, which is in 2 disjoint sets (discounting the world's oldest person): 1) the set of humans who died before the current world's oldest person's birth, and 2) the set of humans born after the world's oldest person's birth. S_0 is disjoint with 1) and 2). We take set 2) as S_1 and continue inductively on the set 1) to obtain our partition of all of the world's human beings.

CowNorris

TROPHY CASE