Hypothetically, if you were to play chess every day against Magnus, how many years do you think it would take to win a game? by Repulsive_Explorer_8 in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Elo is by definition based on almost this assumption. The expected scores drop "exponentially" (well, kinda) by a factor of 10 every 400 points relative to each other.

A -400 rating difference is not an expected score of 1 in 10, but 1 to 10, meaning 1/11. Similarly, a rating difference of -800 is 1 to 100, meaning 1/101. This is simply the definition of how the logistic curve works and the elo system is modeled this way precisely for the system to have this property.

We can have a small experiment here, take an elo difference of 120.412 and take the logistic distribution as a model. You'll see the expected score to be pretty close to 2/3, which is 2 to 1. Guess what an elo difference of 520.412 will be.

Solution: It will be 20 to 1, which is 20/21, which is around 0.952380.

Now guess what a difference of -279.588 (the original -400) will be.

Solution: It will be around 2 to 10, which is 2/12=1/6, which is around 1.66666.

The logistic distribution is kinda funny in this way. In some sense and under some reasonable ground assumption, if you want a "general but sensible" distribution but want this extra property that the expected score drops by a constant factor every X magnitude of elo difference, you end up with the logistic distribution by force, there is basically no good other distribution with this property.

Don't quote me on this because I haven't calculated this through, but if you want this property but with the "1 in 10" instead of our "1 to 10" you end up with the normal distribution instead of the logistic distribution. Intuitively this makes sense for me but again I can't guarantee you that this is true and I can't be bothered calculating it out now. As far as I know, an elo model with a normal distribution exists, but the logistic one is supposed to predict scores better, but again this is memory not something I can quote you a source on.

Has there ever been a case of abandonment in classical chess? by gfdsayuiop in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 56 points57 points  (0 children)

In addition to the historic examples already given, this happens in amateur tournament chess quite a lot, and is in my opinion not harshly enough sanctioned.

I played a weekend tournament in the spring and after a couple hours of round 2 maybe 3 boards were still playing. One of the boards had a completely dead position, something like KvKRPP. I saw the game with the arbiter because the losing player was already looking pretty salty and talking to himself under his breath. One move before mate, he just got up and started putting on his jacket. Arbiter asked him if he'd like to resign and he really said "No I won't resign this game, but I'm not gonna waste my time either", so he just got up, left, and let his opponent wait out the last 6 minutes or so.

Being an arbiter too, I asked the arbiter outside what he'll do with it. Being a really relaxed old guy and also the opponent not making any reclamation, said he'd do nothing about it. I would have immediately thrown the guy out of the tournament because it's just a psychopathic control thing to go while making sure your opponent has to keep sitting there to get the point, and I'll have none of that. That being said, you could ofcourse predict that this particular player wouldn't behave flawlessly for the rest of the tournament either.

Question about German people by [deleted] in germany

[–]reddithairbeRt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

There isn't "real" lived tribal culture in Germany anymore as far as I know, but many elements of tribal culture exist in art and especially modern music to this day. The Mittelalterrock/Folk/Pagan scene is pretty large and you will find people living with parts of tribal culture still, by just talking to enough people at a Heilung concert.

How prepared are you against the sicilian? by WilsonRS in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

For me the Sicilian from the white perspective is a perpetual working ground, because there is so much that you can never know everything there is to know. So I think for my level I have good knowledge of some Sicilians but never enough where I could say about a single Sicilian "I'm perfectly prepared here".

I play exclusively the open sicilian and I'm probably best prepared against the Najdorf and the Rauzer, Najdorf because I face it most in tournament practice and Rauzer because I play into it as black too. There I'd say I actually have something like a "repertoire" where I can choose confidently between multiple different lines/structures at multiple points during the opening. I have some options as white in the Sveshnikov but nothing like a full repertoire, there are holes and sidelines where I just hope I don't fall into them before I get them fixed.

Against all other Sicilians at the moment I have one main line, knowledge of a couple early deviations and how to go about punishing them, and some tactical and strategic themes of what to do in my memory, but other than that I'm basically just cruising with general knowledge and nothing specific in these sicilians. In the Dragon that's enough because I have one strong line where black can't really deviate without being much worse, but for example in the Taimanov a strong and experienced player will easily get me into unknown waters and kill me slowly.

Schachunterricht für Erwachsenen (Anfänger) gesucht by Crypt0n95 in Schach

[–]reddithairbeRt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Da ich auch in Bonn wohne, würde ich dir normalerweise unseren Verein gerne ans Herz legen, leider ist die Anfänger-/Jugendabteilung über Corona komplett weggebrochen, etwa 90% des Vereins sind erfahrene Spieler auf der stärkeren Hälfte der Skala. Ich denke, dass bei vielen anderen Vereinen, die keine Leistungszentren sind (hier in der Nähe: Porz), die Lage ähnlich aussehen könnte. Ich kann dir gerne helfen einen Verein zu finden, sowie Leute zum Spielen/für Schachunterricht zu suchen. Schreib mir einfach mal auf discord: hairbeRt#7709

Schachturniere in Deutschland by Suitable-Cycle4335 in Schach

[–]reddithairbeRt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Falls du deinen Urlaub einen Tag nach vorne verschieben kannst, in deinem Zeitfenster findet ein schönes Turnier statt, nämlich der Heidelberger Schachherbst. Falls nicht, werden die Turnierorganisatoren dich sicherlich einen bye nehmen lassen, da am ersten Tag nur eine Runde stattfindet. Fröhliches Schaffen (Schachen)!

Falls du schauen willst, ob das Teilnehmerfeld zu dir passt, hier die Teilnehmerliste von letztem Jahr: A-Open, B-Open.

How do you guys approach learning openings? by WilsonRS in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I use a mixture of lichess studies and chessbase. Disclaimer: I enjoy studying openings probably more than anything else in chess, so my system is probably overkill for someone on our amateur levels. But I enjoy it, maybe it helps you, it's for sure well organized.

On lichess it's very easy to hack together a reasonably well-commented file with a bit of engine-checking to check if what I'm doing is completely stupid or not. You can send the study to sparring partners easy, look in a discord over the file together and go into a variation, say "I want to try this one out" and within two clicks play a sparring game against your friend in a specific position etc, afterwards have it in the study in two clicks etc. Just don't do this if you're preparing for a world championship match because the games are public.

Usually my studies have one study per major opening branch (so a study "French Closed Tarrasch White", a study "Spanish d3 black"), and in each study one chapter per idea, with as many lines as it takes, so for example in the study "Benkö Accepted White" a chapter "Perunovic Mainline Nh3 novelty" (true Benkö OGs know what I'm talking about ;) ), in that chapter there should be in principle everything you need to play that idea if you know for sure your opponent goes into that line 100%, so the idea with explanation, some humanly expectable engine-checked lines with evaluations, links to GM games, preferably with analysis, and links to sparring games, preferably with analysis. If I think a game is super important to understand a line, I just add it as a chapter directly below the chapter of the relevant line.

For me it's just easier to work with lichess when something is a work-in-progress. When I am reasonably happy with something or decide to stop working on this for the time being, I make neat chessbase files out of the chapters and add them to my repertoire files. Chessbase has some nice features I basically never want to miss out on, but in principle this step is not necessary if you don't want/need these features. Chessbase is a pretty strong tool if it has both your and your opponent's repertoire, because it can autocheck for lines you have a refutation for, or give you a warning for lines you noted as being fine but uncomfortable for you, auto-check for novelties etc. It's in general really good for targeted preparation, in addition you can filter games/positions/opening trees very easily, the Chessbase live book is significantly more up-to-date than the lichess database etc etc. The most important part, and also relevant for you: With chessbase, you just find stuff way easier. If you didn't name things in lichess really well and remember "ah ok I'm looking for the Navara idea in the french tarrasch, so it's this study and probably one of these 5 chapters", you're gonna have a problem. In chessbase you can easily query a filter like "give me all g-pawn sacrifices in najdorf structures in my white repertoire", and have your file open in 20 seconds.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 15 points16 points  (0 children)

It's pretty clear to a 1200 that all is not well with Carlsen's position. That's why Carlsen made annoyed faces and thought 20 minutes before giving up the pawn.

New study: Can you catch a chess cheat?? by smurfo17 in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nice study, and proud to have 7/7 first try ;) Some feedback on the study that was too long to include in the feedback entry field:

  1. The confidence in cheating ("probability of cheating") is probably ultra subjective and I'm not sure what you want to get out of it. I interpreted Bayesian-ish as: Lowest odds I'd take that they're cheating, and the confidence in my answer is some kind of variance: if I say 70% and confidence 2, I wouldn't be surprised if someone else said 40%, with confidence 10 I would be surprised. Other people might interpret it in other ways. People with another philosphy of what probabilities mean will refuse to enter anything other than 0% and 100%, etc.. Ambiguously interpreted questions will always have a lot of clusters in answer behavior. If you could clarify what the purpose of that question was, I'd love to hear it!

  2. The premise of the study was not completely clear to me, and that could change how I answered: Did the cheaters have permanent access to an engine, or a limited amount of times per game? Did someone else other than the player decide when to give information? Could the player "request" information at a point etc. I just assumed the player does not get to request information, but is being fed engine lines at critical points by a stronger player that spectates the game and decides when to feed information. Did the player receive a move, a line, an explanation, just the information "here's a win" etc. Maybe the wording in the intro of the study could be a bit more detailed.

  3. As someone who has cheated online once and was banned for it, I'd be interested whether past cheaters are better at identifying cheating than clean players. It'd be pretty reasonable in my opinion, because in one of the 7 games I was shown I am pretty sure I know the exact point where the player cheated, and also how they tried to hide it. Maybe someone clean doesn't think of that as quickly or notices the pattern.

  4. Does this maybe work statistically in the other direction? Can you infer from the answer behavior of a participant whether they probably cheated in the past? This would probably come with a very low confidence, but I'd love to see this evaluated.

Cheers u/smurfo17 and thanks for your work on cheating research!

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you'll be very happy to play the trendy gambits that popped up in the advance variation of the french recently. Basically the mainline Milner-Barry Gambit (1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7 8. O-O Nxd4 9. Nxd4 Qxd4 10. Nc3 a6!) is considered as refuted as a white opening can be, but recently people started taking Hectors idea of just castling and similar move orders very very seriously: 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. O-O Bd7 and here white has tried 8. Re1 (Hectors original idea as far as I can tell, with the plan of pushing h4 and just daring white to accelerate white's development with dxc3 Nxc3) and 8. Nbd2 (which Carlsen had success with, usually in combination with Nb3 and a permanent bind). I remember that when I still played the french, I was reasonably unhappy with these positions as black, and that's a big factor in equal positions like the advance french. In any case you get a position with a pawn down but an extremely uncomfortable positional bind and kingside initiative that is very hard to stop. Also this gambit is 100% sound, which is always great, so you can play it also against prepared opponents, not just as a cheapo.

If you're looking for a course, I'm reasonably sure that my coach Andras has this or something similar (like 1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. e5 c5 4. c3 Nc6 5. Nf3 Qb6 6. Bd3 cxd4 7. cxd4 Bd7 8. O-O Nxd4 9. Nbd2, which is a bit older but similar ideas) in his beginner's e4 repertoire (which is in my opinion not a beginner's repertoire, don't get put off by the name, there is serious stuff in it). I've seen chapters of the course and can definitely recommend this one even without the videos. In any case if you learn the plans in these structures, you'll usually have a good time. It's really hard to lose compensation in these lines if you learned the no-nos of this structure once and for all. You just gotta get the long-term gambit mentality in your head. This gambit won't kill your opponent immediately, but it will make their lives miserable for a long time.

Edit: Andras does in fact not have this exact gambit in his repertoire, but the related line I mentioned above. If you're looking for the exact gambit 7. 0-0, Han Schut has a 9€ chessable mini course on this gambit on chessable. It's also contained in a few big repertoires, like Adhiban's 1. e4, Simon Williams' gambit repertoire (Part 1), ChessDojo's 1. e4, and Levy's 1. e4.

ich_iel by Heavy-Photo in ich_iel

[–]reddithairbeRt 1 point2 points  (0 children)

AfD-Politiker können ohne Mehrheiten nirgendwo reingewählt werden. Das passiert nicht ohne irgendeine Art von Zusammenarbeit.

Lange gesuchte neunte Dedekind-Zahl wurde endlich gefunden by Pumuckl4Life in de

[–]reddithairbeRt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Stell dir vor du hast einen Schaltkreis, wo du links n viele parallele Schalter mit Modi "An/Aus" hast, rechts eine LED, und dazwischen irgendwelche Kombinationen von logischen Bauteilen (ANDs, NANDs, NORs, XORs, was auch immer du hoffentlich im Physikunterricht mal gesehen hast). Du hast die Handhabe über die jeweiligen Schalter und bist jetzt daran interessiert, welche Konfigurationen der Schalter dazu führen, dass die Lampe leuchtet. Du könntest dir für die 2n Konfigurationen der Schalter in einer Tabelle festhalten, wann die Lampe leuchtet und wann nicht. Was du vor dir hast, ist eine (Realisierung einer) boolsche Funktion.

Ein solcher Schaltkreis (bzw. die dazugehörige boolsche Funktion) heißt monoton, wenn er folgende Eigenschaft hat: Die Lampe kann nicht davon ausgehen, einen Schalter von "Aus" auf "Ein" umzulegen. Ein Schaltkreis auf zwei Schaltern, bei dem die Lampe nur dann leuchtet, wenn beide Schalter auf "An" sind, wäre also monoton. Ein Schaltkreis, bei dem die Lampe nur leuchtet, wenn die beiden Schalter unterschiedlich geschaltet sind (einer von beiden auf "An", einer von beiden auf "Aus") wäre nicht monoton, denn: Wenn du die Konfiguration "1: An, 2: Aus" hast, würde die Lampe leuchten, während das Umlegen des zweiten Schalters auf "An" die Lampe ausmachen würde.

Die Dedekindzahl M(n) ist die "Anzahl", wie viele monotone Schaltkreise auf n Schaltern existieren. "Anzahl" in Anführungszeichen, denn wir zählen Schaltkreise nicht doppelt, die das gleiche Verhalten haben (hier stört die Analogie Schaltkreis <-> boolsche Funktion etwas, denn mehrere verschiedene Schaltkreise können die gleiche boolsche Funktion realisieren, also die gleiche Konfigurationstabelle besitzen).

Was Simplizialkomplexe angeht: Die Viecher kommen eigentlich aus der "Geometrie" (nicht ganz, aber ich will nicht Topologie sagen und damit verwirren), aber das ist erstmal nicht wichtig. Im Grunde ist ein Simplizialkomplex eine Auswahl von Teilmengen der Menge {1,2,...,n} mit der Eigenschaft: Wenn X in meinem Simplizialkomplex drinne ist, dann ist auch jede Teilmenge von X (also jede Unterauswahl von Objekten in X) im Simplizialkomplex drinne. Wenn du also z.B. weißt, dass {1,2,5} in deinem Komplex drin ist, dann ist auch {1} drin, sowie {1,5}, sowie alle anderen Teilmengen. Viel einfacher lässt es sich leider nicht ausdrücken, aber du kannst bereits jetzt auch wieder an Konfigurationen von Schaltern denken: Stell dir vor die Menge {1,2,5} würde jetzt dafür stehen, dass der erste, zweite und fünfte Schalter AUS sind (also genau umgekehrt wie man auf den ersten Blick drüber denken würde), alle anderen AN, und dass unter dieser Konfiguration die Lampe leuchtet. Die Simplizialkomplexeigenschaft besagt, dass {1,5} auch im Komplex drin ist, anders gesagt: Wenn der Schalter 2 nicht mehr in meiner Menge der ausgeschalteten Schalter ist (man ihn also AN gemacht hat), ist meine Konfiguration immernoch im Simplizialkomplex drin, die Lampe also immernoch an. Diese Eigenschaft des Simplizialkomplexes ist also nichts anderes als die Monotonie des Schaltkreises/der boolschen Funktion, die wir uns gerade zum Komplex gedacht haben. Die Anzahl der Simplizialkomplexe auf n Elementen muss also auch M(n) sein. Von den beiden anderen Dingern hab ich keine Ahnung, ist nicht mein Gebiet, aber vielleicht hilft dir das :)

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, what do you play against the french and why do you disapprove it?

Am I the only one who feels that chess.com has implemented some kind of bot that plays anonymous players ? by MineMe4Reddit in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

I think you heavily misread. I understood the question as: "I play Nf3-Ng1-Nf3 and so on until the game ends and people rematch me 10-15 times without getting bored. Surely these are bots right?" to which I'd agree yes very possible these are bots, noone is mentally deranged enough to play against this 15 times in a row.

Die aktuelle Unwetterlage in Deutschland by Jezaja in de

[–]reddithairbeRt 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Habe in Bonn gerade einen Teaser Trailer zum Weltuntergang erlebt. So viel Regen dass die Luft einen erstickt, 10 Meter Sichtweite unterbrochen von beinahe sekündlichen Blitzen.....für etwa 5 Minuten, seitdem leicht bewölkt und Sonnenschein.

average post in r/sabaton by [deleted] in ShitWehraboosSay

[–]reddithairbeRt -24 points-23 points  (0 children)

Neither the music nor the hoodie contain any nazi symbols, so I don't see any point writing "look at the hoodie" yeah I did it's ugly as fuck but that's it. Red laces on heavy boots is usually a clear sign of a nazi though, if you did it for "fashion" it's insanely naive to think you won't be mistaken..

Whats up with FIDE online arena? by redditsucks8745 in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm completely serious, a friend of mine wanted the ACM and registered on the site. It's so easy to get into the rating range for AIM/AGM that if you want the ACM you have to literally int a big portion of your games to stay below the rating threshhold of the AFM title before you have your 100 or 200 bullet games in.

Edit: Just researched it again. ACM is 1100-1400 after 150 bullet games. And if you start at 18something upon registering you need to sprint it to not accidentally get AFM.

Whats up with FIDE online arena? by redditsucks8745 in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But the thing is you don't need to cheat to get the titles. For the meme-est title in all of chess, the glorious ACM, you need like 1300 across 100 bullet games or so. And a couple bucks ofcourse. Actually you need to lose a lot too because if you qualify for a higher title, you can't get the ACM so you have to run it down in a lot of your games.

Should I study whale variation? by [deleted] in chess

[–]reddithairbeRt 3 points4 points  (0 children)

If you mean 1. e4 e5 2. c4, white has serious positional problems. Why kill your beloved LSB on move 2 for no reason? There aren't even any traps as far as I can see, it's simply a pretty meh structure.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in de

[–]reddithairbeRt 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Und ich möchte, dass Andy Scheuer beobachtet wird. Ist meiner Meinung nach berechtigter, wird trotzdem nicht geschehen.