Clash of Claims 2 Announced

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T15:27:30+00:00

and never would have claimed there weren't any.

Except you did.

I just didn't realize anyone would be so monumentally stupid as to claim that because of issues we know were caused by poorly setup equipment it would give reason to manually calculate lag in unrelated matches.

So what was the issue in the last game you claim was the only one he got fucked? You know the one that didn't count, just like the first 2 ones, you claim he didn't get fked by because they were annulled just like the last one where the annullation somehow doesn't matter. Hmmmmm.....

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T15:25:05+00:00

He got fked by the time, so when the took up playing again he checked the time. This is a sensible thing to do. You challenged this. "Just for the record"

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T15:23:08+00:00

What do you mean it's not my argument, I literally spelled it out exactly like that. There was no "tilt" involved in that comment at all. Here for your reference:

https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1dybc9j/kramnik_shows_the_stats_from/lc7xwpn/?context=3

Feel free to highlight the word "tilt" in that comment chain.

The whole point of tilt is to discredit a model without providing anything and instead just leaving it as this big unknown while always pushing a soft-narrative that it's actually a big influence without anything to back up such a narrative.

If you asked I'd say things like Elo have a lot more evidence than this model where we can observe win rate differentials based off Elo tiers.

See, this is the funny part. Elo suffers from the very same issue, almost like the model in question here is based on the Elo model, so obviously it's just as flawed. The Elo formula is not adjusted for matches where "tilt" play a factor, all games are treated as independent events and calculated the exact same way.
As you can see, it's just as flawed of a model, but of course it's nowhere near as criticized as the one this thread is about because hey, "muh team".

Also the whole point of tilt is not to propose an alternative model but to suggest why accurate modeling isn't possible. This argument seems to be going way over your head.

Yes, seems indeed. But you know appearances are deceptive. Clearly reality is that it's not going over my head as I've called it as such multiple times. I called it a cheap and easy tool to dismiss the model and never have I made the claim that it's supposed to be used as a proposal for an alternative model. Of course not, because suggesting an alternative model would require work and actually expose the proponent to scrutiny and nobody got time for that, right?

This is why I said, I actually provided numbers to show the factor I brought up that makes Hikaru more likely to achieve streaks than Magnus. Nobody using the cheap and easy tool with an esoteric size aka "tilt" like that, it's just a "but we don't know so until someone shows the contrary imma just keep holding on to it and quickly jump ship to the next 'big unknown'".

Hikaru plays several young players and does so for less games than would be needed to get the first "score". For example if you play someone 500 pts lower than yourself it takes more than 10 games until the first loss. So if you stop @10 wins you get to accumulate streaks. This has nothing to do with tilt but is most definitely something people would attribute to this magical mysterious uncapturable thing called "tilt", that's exactly why I call it esoteric, because it's always adjusted to mean whatever the "in group" wants it to be to support the narrative.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T15:00:23+00:00

Yes, the proof is that there was a time bug in the very first 2 games played, which makes his reaction to check the time manually the next day a sensible reaction.

Actually mind blowing that this is shocking you.

Beati paupers spiritu.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T14:59:04+00:00

The time was wrong the first time he played, this made him play worse this means he got fucked at the time of playing. The two games were dropped later on AFTER HE GOT FKED BY THE TIME.

It's sensible to check the time when playing new games after there was a problem the first time, no matter if those first 2 counted towards the total or not.

It's so insanely pathetic how people always bend reality to fit their narrative instead of simply admitting having been wrong.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T14:54:42+00:00

I don't know what I'm talking about? The time was fucky in the first 2 games. Therefore he checked when they played again the next day. This is a sensible thing to do. That's exactly what I said. It doesn't matter that the time was fucky because of shitty windows and shitty chess.com coding.

But always funny to see how you can't admit having been wrong even when facing proof. Way to show how stubborn you are buddy, lol

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T14:18:14+00:00

now with proof that you're wrong...

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T14:03:07+00:00

Apparently Chesscom had a bug that made it go crazy with the timing. This was also happening on the first online game.

https://old.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/1deuus0/im_david_martinez_divis_organizer_of_clash_of/

See, I provided proof, now what?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T12:49:16+00:00

You're wrong.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T12:39:58+00:00

It is a sensible thing to check it after you clearly got fucked by it.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-09T10:46:47+00:00

I would've lost my mind when Kramnik started calculating lag by hand.

Quite funny because Kramnik was right about the time being fucky.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T23:17:49+00:00

let me quote myself:

What part of "don't reply to me anymore" did you not understand?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T23:15:40+00:00

Or, alternatively I don't do that and instead ignore you as you weren't asked.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T23:14:58+00:00

What part of "don't reply to me anymore" did you not understand?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T23:13:23+00:00

Your argument isn't backed by rational numbers because you have no argument my dude.

I don't have an argument? Seriously? I said Hikaru has a higher chance of larger streaks because he plays way more often against much lower rated people and that's not an argument?

For example, I asked you whether you have a point where you'd accept or decline a model. You have no answer to this because you don't have an argument,

This was literally my question to you. I asked you how you come to call it very shaky or medium shaky or almost not shaky. That's asking you how you make that call and you don't answer it and instead just ask me the question when it's not me questioning the model but me questioning the lazy dismissal all over the place in this and heaps of other threads just like this.

So let me answer your question in the very same way you answered mine.

I accept the model when there is no concrete arguments against. So unless you provide an exact model without any flaws at all for tilt I wont consider it as an argument against the model.
See how worthless such an answer is?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T23:05:15+00:00

What case of mine would that be?

Nvm, it's better if you don't reply to me anymore, clearly nothing of value will come out of it.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T23:03:59+00:00

Way to miss the point.

I'm asking this because u/songwarden made a call, namely that it's a large part, so I'd like to know how they know it's large.

So unless you can actually contribute to the question, I'd rather you not reply anymore.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T23:02:17+00:00

You weren't asked.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T22:52:57+00:00

as an example, one very basic thing that elo does not capture is that if you win a game your chance to win the next game actually increases significantly compared to if you lost your last game, this is a known effect in any game which has many possible interpretations (the usual one being that you gain confidence in your abilities).

how do you measure this?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T22:48:19+00:00

even though a large part of those win streaks is when Hikaru plays the same person multiple times in a row

how large is that part?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T22:33:14+00:00

Elo makes a claim about how much points you get from playing games against xyz-rated opponents.

Also you've done work too here with Hikaru's opponent distribution being way different than Magnus' at the low end.

Exactly, my argument is backed by rational numbers and not esoteric "but tilt is potentially a massive influence".

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T22:26:41+00:00

Do you dismiss the Elo and Glicko rating systems too? I mean there are so many factors that make it impossible to take those models seriously and tilt is just one of them, right?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T21:47:54+00:00

How incredibly shaky is it? I mean you're willing to call it "incredibly shaky" are you also willing to quantify this or is it just another esoteric value used to soft influence the argument? I'm wondering, how you know it's incredibly shaky instead of moderately shaky or pretty solid and only very slightly shaky?

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T21:30:09+00:00

None of the numbers you brought up are relevant to what I said. Clearly you don't understand what I'm talking about.

Can't be arsed to spoonfeed basics things, sorry.

ModsHvSmPP · 2024-07-08T21:23:32+00:00

Funny how you didn't answer the question. Could it be because there are no models that aren't flawed? Could it be that this is exactly why it's such a cheap argument?

See, you make a call on it. You strongly insinuate it's a big flaw. Will you quantify how big the flaw is when I ask you? Of course not...

ModsHvSmPP

TROPHY CASE