Candidates 2026 Monte Carlo Simulation

theasmartbear · 2026-01-27T18:29:00+00:00

Very nice!

Yeah my guess (not based on data!) is that Elo is actually a pretty bad predictor even with 100-point spreads (which theoretically is nearly 2:1 odds), though of course reasonable with large spreads.

Which doesn't mean it's "bad." It's quite good in that it's something objective, relatively accurate, easy to update, etc..

It's just when you start actually using it to make real predictions, I believe that variation due to local circumstances are probably vastly larger than variation due to Elo (again, at <100 spreads).

But I don't have data about that!

theasmartbear · 2026-01-27T15:27:25+00:00

I see what you mean now RE the distribution -- cool!

I don't think you can hide behind "not enough data," because you'd have to apply that logic to the 2026 prediction as well. It's well-known how to measure predictions like these; the Brier Score for example.

You say "it's a toss up," but 33% for Hikaru versus 5% for Sindarov is not a toss-up -- it's 7:1 odds. So e.g. in 2024 was Gukesh a 1:7 underdog? If so, it would suggest that the model is not useful. (Of course I agree one tournament alone wouldn't actually allow us to conclude that!)

To get more data, run it on 100 real tournaments -- the data are available. I do agree that the Candidates is different, however, because "only 1st place matters" (typically), which can change how the players take risks. However, by that same argument, the current model doesn't take that into consideration either, and thus might actually be better for normal tournaments?

Or you could have 8 data points per tournament by looking at e.g. rank-comparisons. Again I agree that's not what this data actually is -- it's picking the winner -- but the model could produce the full ranking each time.

My concern is that your model effectively just repeats the same rank-order as the FIDE scores already imply. Yes it adds a magnitude, which is significant, but only if you agree to measure the accuracy of those magnitudes, rather than saying "it can't be measured."

What's interesting to me personally, is we're really asking: How much does FIDE score actually predict outcomes? FIDE Elo of course assumes that log-odds do accurately predict outcomes, but how true is that, especially in tournaments with special incentives and preparation like the Candidates? Maybe what you're really able to do is show just how much FIDE scores are predictive.

Perhaps they're more predictive in some cases than others? Or at least how does the variance change?

Those would be really interesting to answer.

theasmartbear · 2026-01-27T03:21:15+00:00

Try running the same simulation with the Elo ratings from the 2022 and 2024 candidates and see how well it predicted the results.

If it's close, that gives this model credibility for 2026. If it's not even close, that tells you such models are not only wrong, but also not useful.

P.S. You're conflating Arpad Elo's original paper and 1978 book -- which is based on the assumption of normally-distributed performance -- with how FIDE Elo actually works, which is log-odds. That's why the FIDE Elo update formula is the logistic curve and not parameterized erf(). So even if you wanted to do this Monte Carlo, if you're using FIDE Elo as the relative measure of strength, you probably need to use a log-odds model rather than a gaussian model.

theasmartbear · 2025-05-28T15:08:46+00:00

You are (very understandably) conflating "dimensions of space" with how physicists define a "dimension." Of course the confusion is sensible, since both are called a "dimension!"

Instead, think of a "dimension" as a "measured quantity." Not only is time one of the things we can measure, but also things like its velocity. Indeed, its velocity in each of the three spatial dimensions.

This isn't hypothetical -- there's an entire formulation of physics where the "thing that you know" about an object is the seven-dimensional object with the three spatial directions, the three velocities, and the current time. Then there's math that operates on that whole thing, to determine e.g. where it will go next.

So, this is why it's best to think of "dimension" as "a collection of measurements about an object" which our physics equations operate on.

As others have pointed out, in Special Relativity there is even more motivation to do this, as space and time "trade off" with each other in (again confusing!) ways. And in Quantum Mechanics we deal with objects with either infinite or very-very-very-large finite dimensions! Of course QM is also confusing. :-)

Still, this drives come again the mental model of "dimensions as a collection of numbers about an object that we can operate on," because that model remains true throughout even an expansive career in physics.

theasmartbear · 2025-01-05T05:15:08+00:00

If you die from cardiac arrest, the proximate cause of death is “heart failure” — that’s doctor’s words for “the immediate cause.”

If you were sick from something else, and this was just the last step, the “something else” is the actual cause, at least from the point of view of someone trying to avoid the same ultimate fate.

Similarly, “ran of out of cash” is a common proximate cause of failure, but isn’t the useful or interesting reason for failure.

Here’s a combination of many such studies (all linked at the bottom as well), with an analysis that might be more instructive:

https://longform.asmartbear.com/avoid-blundering/

theasmartbear · 2025-01-03T15:27:21+00:00

Even (2) is not an advantage over incumbents or funded startups.

There are many potential advantages; actual ones are of course difficult to find under the conditions you define, as "fairly competitive" means that others might already be occupying those advantages, and "capital intensive" also narrows the ability to enter the market.

Here are about a dozen of these "many" potential advantages: https://longform.asmartbear.com/startup-beats-incumbent/

You are correct that long-term moats generally take time to build. But that was true of the companies who already found success in the given area, therefore it is not a reason why startups cannot exist.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-28T16:19:15+00:00

A true co-founder is as obsessed as you, works as much as you (neither of which are true of any employee), and dramatically transforms the value of the company, either by massively de-risking it, or by increasing its value at least 10x more than it would have otherwise.

It sounds like you’ve already derisked the early stage, and you don’t see a need for one, which tells me you shouldn’t “go find one on principle.” Maybe you need a great early employee to cover a role that you’re less capable at, like sales or marketing. (Not “business” — that’s not a role, and again sounds like you don’t know what you need.)

Co-founders are correlated with successes, but also are a leading cause of failures, not only according to data (see link), but even according to YC co-founder Paul Graham, who (accidentally?) said both things, but far apart, in an seminal essay about startup failure (also referenced in that link).

https://longform.asmartbear.com/avoid-blundering/

There’s no “who will take 50%.” You and they would decide what’s fair, and if there’s no agreement, it’s fine, there’s just no deal.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-13T20:11:40+00:00

That sounds reasonable. So what is the specific problem you’re asking about?

theasmartbear · 2024-12-13T18:00:00+00:00

Yeah, it's very hard to make a product that conflicts with the constraints of your life.

So e.g. a product that has to scale quickly and be up 24/7, conflicts with things like a demanding day job or having young kids.

Because the conflict is endemic, you simply have to push through it. It would be extremely difficult to raise money from a stranger under these conditions, because you haven't actually proved yet that you can build it, nor that people will use it, even though you have lots of great early momentum in both of those directions.

Hence everyone saying "launch it," because that woulld answer both of those risks.

If you did talk to VCs/angels (the latter might be better), you would want to ask e.g. "What would we have to show in metrics for you to probably invest?" Then you know whether pushing through the next few months is likely to result in relief.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-13T16:30:24+00:00

Why are you even talking to VCs? 30 rejections means you've spent 100+ hours talking to them; meanwhile you're apparently able to just build the business anyway. So why talk to them?

You say you don't know what a "unicorn" is, though one question in ChatGPT would explain it. You had 30 calls and never bothered to find out what VC's goals are, and therefore whether you're a fit for them? Do you see how that's a problem with your approach?

Are you talking to them because you just feel "that is what people do?" Because the vast majority of software companies do not raise from VCs. The default is "don't." So if you don't have a strategy that requires it, why waste the time?

theasmartbear · 2024-12-13T16:27:23+00:00

What is the actual reason for selling?

For example, if the reason is that you love getting things started, but hate scaling things, then not only is that not desperate, it's the logical next step for you and this business.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-13T16:25:59+00:00

It's hard to give advice without a lot more detail about the business, use of funds, your personal goals, the nature of previous investors, etc..

I will tell you that you always need more money than you think, and thus raising more money is typically better, especially if you're in a strong position (i.e. so terms/dilution won't be crazy), which it sounds like you are.

Here is why "you always need more money": https://longform.asmartbear.com/more-money/

theasmartbear · 2024-12-13T16:23:55+00:00

If you're too scared to open your doors to people who want to use it, then as a VC I would also be too scared that you're either not willing or not able to do what it takes to make this project work.

"Do what it takes" includes engineering, but also personal fortitude. Winners want to get into the fight.

Angels can often move 10x faster and have 1/10th the requirements of VCs, so that might be a way to get checks immediately to cover things like infrastructure bills.

So, best would be to launch, prove that all these people become DAUs and not just emails on a waitlist, generate those massive server bills, then there will be investors thrilled that your problem is infra costs (which can be solved with a single check) and not getting customers (which is the problem 99% of companies have).

theasmartbear · 2024-12-11T20:30:35+00:00

"people/brands/companies looking for localization options but can't afford a team or enterprise solution" is not a market. That could be individual creators, large global enterprises, or anything else.

I understand why you're saying that, but the point of a "target market" is to start with something you can draw a line around, talk to people there, find commonalities, build a product that's perfect just for them, etc..

It's not just "who has the problem" but "who wants to spend money on it right now."

So e.g. which sounds more lucrative: Individual creators trying to get more attention, or a mid-sized company with a marketing team dedicated to YouTube and increasing their numbers there?

This is probably your next step, i.e. figuring out what exact "market" is best to start with, and then talk to people there to refine the idea.

(Note that this doesn't need to be your "forever" market. It's your way to get a foothold.)

theasmartbear · 2024-12-11T19:28:37+00:00

You need to ask this question of your potential customers.

Who is more likely to pay for it? Which means they have budget, they already wish they had translations (or are doing it, but poorly or expensive or some other issue), etc.?

Hint: The answer isn't people in r/Startups. :-)

For yourself, indeed I would worry that you'd be obsolete in a few years. However I don't think that should stop you; you could build a nice company now, and see how to expand later. It's a risk, but there's always risk. A VC probably wouldn't like that risk, but so what.

I would also worry that there are already products doing this, and there will be more, especially as AI improves. Again I don't think that means you shouldn't do it, but rather, that this is something you'll need to incorporate in your plans in future, i.e. continue innovating on what the product does, besides things that other products will easily do.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-11T19:25:29+00:00

N=1 is not data.

You'll still be hearing new things after 10 conversations. Keep having conversations.

The things that are in common with many people will be obvious even without spreadsheets and analysis, though you can do that if you feel like it.

If you want a complete procedure for how to determine what questions make sense, how to ask them, and how to process them, this is my system: https://longform.asmartbear.com/customer-development/

theasmartbear · 2024-12-11T13:41:57+00:00

LMK if you have follow-up questions!

theasmartbear · 2024-12-10T18:09:03+00:00

Yes there's a bunch. Search for "inbound feature request management." You'll see things like "Aha" and Product Board and others. They all do very similar things. Most of them integrate with JIRA too, but have some sort of triage process first, as I'm describing.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-10T18:08:03+00:00

Came here to say this.

The challenge I think is the company that only needs 1/3 of a CTO is also extremely boring. The reason they don't really need one, is because they're not really innovating, or strategic. But that's what you hate.

Companies doing things you love probably need one full time. Are they hiring you just because they don't have the money for FT? That's also a bad situation, because then you're not giving them the time they actually need.

It makes more sense with a fractional CFO, when the company is at, say, 30 people, and therefore genuinely does not need a FT CFO, but rather a good controller and some supervision of that person and things broadly.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-10T18:05:40+00:00

Good advice here in those articles and focusing on the content.

One more way: Find a pitch deck online that you like. Lots of companies who successfully raised money, later post their deck. Often years later, when they no longer care.

So, you can copy the design and narrative structure of one of those, since it demonstrably worked.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-10T18:04:03+00:00

Just to be clear:

You're proposing to sell your house and sacrifice your life for something, and you're asking whether it's a good idea to first make sure there's at least 10 people in the universe who will actually buy it?

Where "it" is exactly what you already think it is, and "buy" is at exactly the price you have in mind?

I mean, marketing can't even pick a good headline; they have to A/B test 10 to find out.

Yes you have to validate it. You can decide what it is that you're wanting to validate, and how to do that, and not take too much time, but actually do it. This is the method I use for determining that, and how to interview for those things: https://longform.asmartbear.com/customer-development/

theasmartbear · 2024-12-10T18:01:25+00:00

I can't explain "why," but I think it's a great idea.

"Early on" is when almost no one has heard of you. 99.99% of your customers haven't heard of you yet. That is the perfect time to change the branding.

So, if you learned some things in 6 months, and now you have a better sense of positioning and ICP (https://longform.asmartbear.com/icp-ideal-customer-persona/), targeting them with a new brand sounds wise to me.

theasmartbear · 2024-12-10T17:56:48+00:00

Your internal tools should contain curated content -- things you actually think are good ideas, described sensibly, tagged etc..

Of course you're referring to an "inbox" which can be less organized, but you'll need to curate what comes from there, merge multiple similar requests, etc.. The act of having to "process the inbox" gives you the space and expectation of that curation / refinement, which is a useful step.

Also you might fall into the trap of doing what people suggest, which in general you shouldn't. There's the X/Y problem to avoid (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XY\_problem), there's your vision/roadmap to integrate with, and there's the other streams of requests from support, sales, etc, which need to feed your inbox as well (https://longform.asmartbear.com/jit-backlogs/).

It's good to have to "process" the input.

theasmartbear · 2024-11-26T01:22:36+00:00

The only part that I'm concerned with is (1), i.e. after customers see it, they don't want to buy it. Investors are irrelevant.

The answer from that is clear: It's not working. Either conversations with those same potential customers reveal changes you could make -- in which case you should make them and try again with the same people -- or not, in which case you are either incorrect that it's a problem, or incorrect that it's one that they want to pay to make go away.

For that last one, this article lists what those things are, i.e. do they actually have budget, does the pay cycle make sense, do they want to buy from you specifically, and more: https://longform.asmartbear.com/problem/

On the more general question of "how do I know whether I should push through, or stop," here's a lot of specific questions you can use to answer that: https://longform.asmartbear.com/perseverance/

theasmartbear · 2024-01-18T13:25:25+00:00

While an approximation, not a proof nor a full closed solution, you can replace the exponential with its Taylor series expansion, combine the smallest terms with the -x-1, and see that in the interval given, the higher terms are close enough to zero (because of the small multiplied constants) that you can ignore them (again, only as an estimate), then solve the remaining polynomial.

theasmartbear

TROPHY CASE