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

Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

longform.asmartbear.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 228 posts

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#141

Post by indymike »

Certhas wrote: post #89
janalsncm wrote: post #57

> the player who committed more blunders lost 86% of the time In some sense this is almost tautological. While finding an exact definition for a chess blunder isn't straightforward, here is one example from the Lichess UI: https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/blob/b527746b179cdde6438... Basically, if you make a move which decreases your winning probability more than 14% over the best move, that's a blunder. But winnin…

It's not tautological, though. Your position can gradually deteriorate until it is not salvageable anymore. In that situation we say that the opponent outplayed you. The fact that the switches in probability occur suddenly is highly relevant. One reason for this could be, that you are able to avoid this type of mistake 90% of the time. So during 9 out of ten moves, nothing changes. Then it does. So in this model, avo…

I once watched a volleyball game between my high school’s vaunted multi-time state champion team and a small private school. It was a perfect example of no blunders vs. gradual deterioration. Our team played an aggressive style that would test the opponent’s physical ability and mental toughness. The small private school played no-mistakes, all defense, and no offense. They would dig up everything in bounds and return the ball. They only scored when our team hit the ball out of bounds. That game took four hours, and the only reason the small team lost was depth: they only had one substitute. Eventually, they wore out and just couldn't physically perform.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#142

Post by incorrecthorse »

janalsncm wrote: post #57

> the player who committed more blunders lost 86% of the time In some sense this is almost tautological. While finding an exact definition for a chess blunder isn't straightforward, here is one example from the Lichess UI: https://github.com/lichess-org/lila/blob/b527746b179cdde6438... Basically, if you make a move which decreases your winning probability more than 14% over the best move, that's a blunder. But winnin…

> In some sense this is almost tautological.

Yes. The interesting property would be the reverse proposition: what percentage of victories are granted by not blundering?

In amateur level chess, that number is very high. That's the point the author was trying to make.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#143

Post by vundercind »

I’m bad enough at chess that every match features some blunders.

It’s why I can only play humans. Any not-extremely-subtle-in-its-badness blunder is spotted too consistently by even “easy” chess engines. IIRC I used to go about 50/50 versus the weakest computer on Chessmaster and the entire experience was stressful rather than fun, LOL.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#144

Post by seabass-labrax »

I_ wrote: post #126
seabass-labrax wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow tennis closely enough to understand the difference. What makes the eventual winners at Wimbledon play more aggressively than at the French Open? Is it due to the environment (clay or grass perhaps) or some sort of cultural thing?

Grass is faster, meaning for any given shot over the net you have less time to respond. This encourages attacking behaviour. Clay is slower, meaning even off fast, angled, difficult-to-reach shots the ball bounces higher and slower, meaning you have time to get to it, thus prolonging rallies and points. But beyond that, it's not just that players choose to play more aggressive on grass - a given shot is more aggressi…

Fascinating! Thanks for the explanation.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#145

Post by keeptrying »

On the face of it this seems to imply, moving slowly and deliberately.

However this is not always true.

Example: Detroit lions Vs SF in 2023 playoffs. Avoiding blundering means being adaptable to the situation at hand - not using instinct derived from previous battles.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#146

Post by upwardbound »

> I computed a simple “error score” that includes mistakes while giving blunders more weight: [number of mistakes] × 2*[number of blunders]

This doesn't give blunders more weight..

Multiplication is commutative and associative, so the author's formula is also the same as this one: 2*[number of mistakes] × [number of blunders]

To give more weight to blunders, you could use an exponent, which is a common trick in baseball statistics (SABRmetrics), like this: [number of mistakes] × [number of blunders ^ 1.1]

See e.g. some of the formula concepts invented by Bill James https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_James#Innovations

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#147

Post by [deleted] »

anamexis wrote: post #136
Retric wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an issue of how the games are evaluated. At most skill levels a human being slowly outplayed is trading blunders from a computer’s perspective. For a 1400 a game where an 800 crushed a 500 is most likely a comedy of errors. For a GM that 1400 crushing a 1100 will similarly be filled with missed opportunities. And for a top chess engine on significant depth, most games are practically a slapstick comedy because t…

I don't think that's true. Speaking as someone sub-1000 rated who plays lots of other people in the same region, the computer evals don't typically show a series of blunders. 1 or 2 blunders per game is common, but blunder-less games are also not uncommon. Just lots and lots of suboptimal but not terrible moves.

[deleted]

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#148

Post by blowski »

gizmo wrote: post #130
blowski wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t understand your distinction between types of games. In Chess, your stupid mistake creates an opportunity your opponent can exploit. The failure to exploit an opportunity is itself a mistake. I guess in Poker there is an element of luck of the deal - is that the kind of opportunity you’re talking about?

In Poker it isn't so much about how many hands you win or lose, it's about creating big pots when you have good hands and small pots otherwise. That's how good poker players can profitably play bad cards (that are statistically unlikely to make good hands). In chess the table stakes are always the same. One point for a win, half a point for a draw. To win consistently at chess you have to play the openings carefully,…

So it's thinking about the opportunity at the level of tournament and ladder, rather than individual games.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#149

Post by rKarpinski »

upwardbound wrote: post #146

> I computed a simple “error score” that includes mistakes while giving blunders more weight: [number of mistakes] × 2*[number of blunders] This doesn't give blunders more weight.. Multiplication is commutative and associative, so the author's formula is also the same as this one: 2*[number of mistakes] × [number of blunders] To give more weight to blunders, you could use an exponent, which is a common trick in baseb…

Think the star represents exponent, otherwise they are using two different symbols for multiplication.

Re: Avoid blundering: 80% of a winning strategy

#150

Post by talldatethrow »

Totally unrelated side note, but I was in car sales for almost a decade and was better than top 1% nationwide basically since the first year. Averaging 34 cars a month when national average is 11.

People always asked for advice and in general my advice was "don't shoot yourself in the foot".

Actual particular style or methods aren't that important because whatever style you have will work on some and not on others, so just keep yourself and your pipeline busy with people that are ok with that style.

But don't mess up in a way to loose people. You don't need the world's best opener. You need an opener that doesn't turn people off.

You don't need to be the best more charismatic person, just don't turn people off.

You don't need to be the world strongest closer, just don't turn people off making them get up and leave.

Stop making mistakes, and the rest is usually fine.

Post reply on HN