On 1/18/2024 6:12 AM, Timothy Chow wrote:
Related observations have been made by
John O'Hagan and Douglas Zare.
Only three paragraphs of Zare's article is
free to read but even with that little, it
is interesting that he is the only one who
mentions luck along with skill in the same
sentence.
One of my arguments on this subject is that
"luck+skill=1" is a cow-pie. Obviously Zare
won't say this. So, I wonder what more did
he say about luck in the rest of his article.
To repeat my argument: winner has always more
luck, thus more luck = less skill, thus less
skill = more errors, higher PR...
In particular, they suggest that when
you're losing, you often have easier
decisions to make and so that will tend
to lower your error rate.
I skimmed through the posts in the bgonline
thread, looking for keywords and skipping
most of the dwelling on the details of their
common arguments as you summarized above.
Unlike me, all you guys are both worshiping
believers who will never admit that cubeful
equities are inaccurate. They need to find
explanations that won't shake their faiths.
Bob Coca questions "Is there data indicating
this?" But how can any data indicate their
explanations based on decisions being easy
or difficult?
You comment that XG won't count sufficiently
easy decisions as decisions at all. Bot how
does XG know if a decision is sufficiently
easy or not? For that matter, how can humans
know?
I think you had participated in a few past
discussions about determining the difficulty
of positions, to find out that it's not easy
if not nearly impossible to do.
They suggest that this effect occurs not
only when humans play against bots but
when humans play against humans.
In humans against humans, players are much
likely to deviate from the bot play, and PR
is measured by the bot. In humans against
bots, at least the bot is totally consistent
and human is less likely to deviate from the
strategy to achieve the best PR.
Anyway, what would Occam's Razor say here..?
MK
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)