Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

new.chess24.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 132 posts

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#101

Post by babyshake »

lake_vincent wrote: post #90
btwillard wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd that people can't work on something in which they're interested and talk about it publicly without being labeled a "crank". Sorry, there's nothing holy about the Riemann Hypothesis; anyone can add their input to the problem, especially on ArXiV and/or YouTube. You know, that's how discussions can start, and sometimes people want to discuss things with others. It seems like you might think only certain people…

It's not the discussion that makes you a crank. It's publishing a paper claiming you have solved something that you haven't even begun to understand. It's bypassing peer review. It's ignoring all the literature out there and claiming that is somehow a virtue. You have an interesting idea? Go ahead, please share it! But it's not productive to just start with "Look everybody, I solved it!" It just wastes everyone's tim…

> It's bypassing peer review.

Unfortunately, if you aren't already part of the in-crowd, getting peer review at all can be very difficult, if you have any type of unorthodox idea. Because, you guessed it, you get labelled as a "crank", so why bother wasting time reviewing your paper?

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#102

Post by robrenaud »

dmurray wrote: post #34
epolanski wrote: post #26

I think one major piece is consistently missed in those articles. Yes, the chances of him hitting 2900 do not depend only on his performance against other players, but from their elo as well. If the following 25 players in the world where all 2800+ Carlsen would already be 2900+. Thus, Carlsen's best chances largely depend on elo inflation to widen the elo distribution itself. One example of this: Louis de Bourdonnai…

The Elo system didn't exist until 100 years after Labourdonnais. There are several attempts to extend it backwards, but they're not well defined. It doesn't make sense to say Labourdonnais went "from 2600 to 2650" without changing his playing strength: it's an artifact of some particular guy's methodology to estimate historical ratings.

Elo takes match results and spits out ratings. Why does it matter that it was invented after the matches took place, as long as the game records are accurate? The timing of the games is irrelevant.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#103

Post by btwillard »

spekcular wrote: post #98
redox99 wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's pretty mean and doesn't add much, to point out he was wrong about something 5 years ago (even if it's a very well known problem). I certainly wouldn't like it if after submitting a blog post, the top comment on HN is about me being wrong 5 years ago.

He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should be able recognize the proof is wrong. Especially after the errors are uncovered by others and com…

> He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel.

You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions". It sounds like you think he should hide his shame; otherwise he deserves your attacks.

> We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should really be able recognize his proof is wrong, especially after the errors are uncovered by others. Continuing to assert the proof is correct after errors have been found is bizarre.

People probably shouldn't, and don't, care because he's not affecting them in any way with his RH-related ArXiV and YouTube musing.

More importantly, where are there people showing him how his proof is wrong, and where is he outright denying their points/proofs? It seems like I'm missing a link or two, because I haven't seen any of these things, yet you're referring to them as though they're apparent and damning.

My guess is that he simply doesn't get feedback about this stuff, and he probably doesn't even care that much, because this is just a set of ideas with which he likes to work. I've seen no signs of a charged or "high stakes" math community engagement, and definitely not the kind that deserves these unwarranted personal criticisms.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#104

Post by btwillard »

spekcular wrote: post #97
btwillard wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not the discussion that makes you a crank. It's publishing a paper claiming you have solved something that you haven't even begun to understand. It's bypassing peer review. It's ignoring all the literature out there and claiming that is somehow a virtue. You've effectively said that people can't post things on ArXiV unless they're up to your unstated standards; otherwise, they're just "cranks". Also, no one is…

The standard being applied here is just that the work is correct. Polson's paper on RH is wrong. It is bad practice to post incorrect results and not retract them when this is pointed out.

> It is bad practice to post incorrect results and not retract them when this is pointed out.

And it's good practice to take shots at people whenever you see their name?

Also, no, there's no "practice" that says you can't keep a mistake posted on ArXiV or YouTube. That just sounds like something you've made up to justify attacking someone.

And who's pointing this out to him?

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#105

Post by spekcular »

btwillard wrote: post #103
spekcular wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should be able recognize the proof is wrong. Especially after the errors are uncovered by others and com…

> He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions". It sounds like you think he should hide his shame; otherwise he deserves your attacks. > We all make mistakes, and no one would really ca…

I believe knowingly disseminating incorrect results is wrong. This is a violation of fundamental academic standards; we would not tolerate it in any other scientific field. Do you disagree?

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#106

Post by nluken »

qzw wrote: post #99
mattkrause wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ELO is a relative measure though, so it's more like winning a highly competitive mile race by 5 or 10 seconds, when the usual gap is usually under a second. It's still impressive as heck. One tempting comparison is Usain Bolt, but it feels a little different to me because he dominates both objectively (WR) and versus his competitors.

Isn’t a world record also relative? I mean, it’s literally “the lowest time (greatest height, longest distance, highest score, etc) that’s ever been achieved, compared to other human beings in the same event ”. 2900 for Carlson is basically a world record elo score. I don’t see any arguments in T&F that a world record decathlon score, for example, wouldn’t be a worthy goal.

A 4-minute mile represents the same milestone regardless of the other competitors in the race, not relative to their performance. You can win said mile by a minute, or come last; if your time is 3:xx.xx, then you've broken that milestone.

The decathlon works the same way- the points scoring there isn't relative like Elo is, it's done by performance in an individual event. You don't get any extra points for winning a given decathlon event, there's a scoring scale for your marks regardless of position.

The exact same performance will differ in how it affects two players' Elo depending on both players ratings. If all players' ratings were to be 100 points higher with all else equal, the top players ratings would rise as well. If everyone in my Mile runs 10 seconds faster, my time doesn't also get 10 seconds faster.

Basically, one record is an individual performance mark. The other is a ranking, which is a different kind of metric entirely.

With all that in mind, chasing a world record Elo is still a worthy goal IMO. The competitive chess scene is old and robust enough that it remains a meaningful benchmark, even if it is a relative measure.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#107

Post by TheAceOfHearts »

lake_vincent wrote: post #90
btwillard wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's odd that people can't work on something in which they're interested and talk about it publicly without being labeled a "crank". Sorry, there's nothing holy about the Riemann Hypothesis; anyone can add their input to the problem, especially on ArXiV and/or YouTube. You know, that's how discussions can start, and sometimes people want to discuss things with others. It seems like you might think only certain people…

It's not the discussion that makes you a crank. It's publishing a paper claiming you have solved something that you haven't even begun to understand. It's bypassing peer review. It's ignoring all the literature out there and claiming that is somehow a virtue. You have an interesting idea? Go ahead, please share it! But it's not productive to just start with "Look everybody, I solved it!" It just wastes everyone's tim…

Peer review isn't a great modern invention. It's better to publish things out in the open and allow discussion of them. If we perform code reviews out in the open and it has proven exceptionally successful then I don't see why we wouldn't encourage the same for scientific research. The fact that peer reviews happen in private makes the whole process opaque to outsiders, and it simply creates artificial barriers.

If you have valid criticisms of something, you can make them in public and help everyone involved grow.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#108

Post by btwillard »

spekcular wrote: post #105
btwillard wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions". It sounds like you think he should hide his shame; otherwise he deserves your attacks. > We all make mistakes, and no one would really ca…

I believe knowingly disseminating incorrect results is wrong. This is a violation of fundamental academic standards; we would not tolerate it in any other scientific field. Do you disagree?

Do you think he's trying to poison the minds of young mathematicians?

At the very least, you're raising ArXiV and YouTube to a standard they openly do not meet.

Also, did you raise these points to him and he denied your evidence/proofs? Do you know someone who did and you're speaking for them?

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#109

Post by causi »

btwillard wrote: post #103
spekcular wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. We all make mistakes, and no one would really care if he admitted this. What makes the case notable is that he has enough mathematical training that he should be able recognize the proof is wrong. Especially after the errors are uncovered by others and com…

> He has continued to update the paper (as recently as last year), it has not been retracted, and he appears to maintain the proof is correct on his YouTube channel. You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions". It sounds like you think he should hide his shame; otherwise he deserves your attacks. > We all make mistakes, and no one would really ca…

You know that ArXiV and YouTube aren't considered "journals" and don't have a similar requirement for "retractions".

My guess is that he simply doesn't get feedback about this stuff, and he probably doesn't even care that much, because this is just a set of ideas with which he likes to work.

Having every right to be a jackass doesn't make you not a jackass.

Re: What are Magnus Carlsen's chances of reaching 2900?

#110

Post by narag »

xtracto wrote: post #72
narag wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lichess doesn't use ELO rating but a different rating system. That explains some odditites I've observed, like different strength with the same rating at different hours of the day or different days.

Yes!!! I've long been frustrated by this. I'm around 1800 if I play at certain times, but quickly get down to 1700 when playing at others. For some reason 1700s are stronger during night.

And something even worse: sometimes it seems that lower rated players are consistently stronger, so if you fall below some threshold, you get stuck there. On the other hand, if you can get above it, you suddenly win and win...
Post reply on HN