The TSW Challenge

@Noflaps said in #54:

@Inventor_1, I'm sorry if you do not like me or do find me frustrating.

You are rated over 2300 at blitz, so far as I can tell.

So --do you typically or regularly encounter Noflaps when Noflaps makes a routine game seek? I think not!

I still await your announcement that you have just achieved the TSW Achievement. I will applaud you as surely as I applauded mighty @Thymeflies! Of course, that might not give you the "Oak Leaf Cluster," as well. Improvement typically remains possible, fortunately!

I don't dislike people merely because they downvote or disagree with me (over and over). Nah, life's too short to be too serious or hold grudges, in my slightly humble opinion.

I am somewhat curious why you apparently seem to feel so strongly that I must agree that achieving 10 sequential wins in normal practice is essentially "no big deal."

But I just can't. I've been playing chess a long time. And in actual practice, in normal day-to-day play, it doesn't happen often.

And yes, by the way, I actually do understand probability. Indeed, more than you might suspect! And I'd agree that if I could manage to play some 400-rated player over and over, I'd likely beat them 10 times in a row.

But so what? That doesn't really represent my actual, day-to-day experience. And I assume most who attempt the achievement are just going to play reasonably, as they normally do. And if they do -- they will find, I believe, that the achievement is not routinely achieved.

And I (stubbornly) continue to believe that they should be somewhat proud of their courage and skill -- especially since -- when one gets CLOSE to such an achievement -- it tends to make most players get a bit nervous. Like being one out away from pitching a perfect game!

I look forward to any downvotes to this post! I tend to see the glass as "half full" --- and that will make it likely (though far from certain) that the post was read! And I appreciate that.

And regarding your extreme reasoning (like I don't like you, that's why...). No, I don't know you at all, I don't have a final opinion about you yet. In this thread, I wasn't criticizing you in general, but your specific actions on this topic. I was explaining to you that you came up with ridiculous nonsense. And that's all. By the way. Now, if you had come up with it a little differently, it wouldn't have been ridiculous nonsense, but an interesting, correct task. For example, if it were like this: you need to win 10 times in a row against opponents with a rating no lower than 200 points lower than yours. Why 200? It doesn't have to be that way, but it's the most logical way. So the task is solvable, but difficult. And a 200-point difference is a difference of 1 rank. That is, the task would be: win 10 times in a row against those who are only 1 rank lower than you. Such a task would truly be a mini-achievement. It would require many attempts to solve it. It would require, on average, hundreds of games for everyone. And on average more than a week to solve it. And not like your task now. Which is easy for almost everyone to solve simply by solving it. Just take much weaker opponents and beat them 10 times in a row (beating them with a score of 10:0 would be easy for almost everyone).

Congratulations, @Inventor_1 !

In the last 21 hours you seem, indeed, to have won 10 in a row!

I think you're the second person in the thread to achieve it. Both of you are impressive.

I will continue to respect, and not look down upon, those who try and fail, too! It is difficult to succeed without trying, after all.

Incidentally, it isn't "ridiculous nonsense" to suggest that winning 10 in a row is typically an achievement. Ask those who have tried it, and found it to be difficult. Your ability to achieve it over the last 21 hours doesn't suggest that it is an easy task for all. As I noted, you seem to have quite a high blitz rating.

Not everybody does. But by not getting discouraged, and by celebrating what successes we may, some progress remains possible for most, I believe.

@Noflaps said in #61:

Congratulations, @Inventor_1 !

In the last 21 hours you seem, indeed, to have won 10 in a row!

I think you're the second person in the thread to achieve it. Both of you are impressive.

I will continue to respect, and not look down upon, those who try and fail, too! It is difficult to succeed without trying, after all.

Incidentally, it isn't "ridiculous nonsense" to suggest that winning 10 in a row is typically an achievement. Ask those who have tried it, and found it to be difficult. Your ability to achieve it over the last 21 hours doesn't suggest that it is an easy task for all. As I noted, you seem to have quite a high blitz rating.

Not everybody does. But by not getting discouraged, and by celebrating what successes we may, some progress remains possible for most, I believe.

Thank you for your congratulations and expressing your impression of me, of course. But you still haven't understood anything. It's easy to do. I did it easily on the first try. Or I can do it this way: try 10 attempts to make a series of 10 wins in a row. And with a probability of about 100% in 9 or 10 of these 10 attempts to successfully achieve this goal (do 10 times in a row in each series). So it may turn out to be 100 wins in a row. But for this I would no longer take on a task that was specially complicated by me (I took opponents here on average 275 points lower in rating). But about 1000 points lower in rating. And I would simply crush them all in a row (with a score of 100:0 in my favor or almost so).

I haven't understood anything, @Inventor_1 ?

Oh. Perhaps you could examine my earlier post #35 attempting to provide a mathematical approximation of an average case (keeping in mind that Lichess appears to provide us with a selection of visible seeks that centers more or less around our own ratings).

My calculation provides a "rough feel" for the ordinary circumstance.

Of course, it could be nitpicked -- as, for example, by noting that the chance of winning against an evenly-matched player (the average opponent, ordinarily) is not precisely 50 percent, and draws do slightly effect the probabilities, as well. But my simplified -- easy-to-grasp calculation shouldn't be far wrong. And it's only intended as an approximation.

And I do know more than a bit about math. Although I've probably forgotten more than I still know. Specialization tends to happen in life, after all.

Or perhaps you could review my admission in #54 that I could probably beat a 400-rated player easily, 10 times in a row.

But, as I noted, that is not ordinary, everyday play. Such an atypical competition doesn't really say much about ordinary online play,

Fortunately, Lichess does not serve me up such an unfair selection of selectable games against players with wildly lower ratings. And I don't think Lichess treats me unusually. I think most of us routinely face a pretty reasonable, sensible selection of opponents against whom we are not wildly over- or under-matched.

And that effects my estimation of the probabilities. The fact that I could outrun a relative tyke ten times in a row doesn't mean I'll win all ten road races against typical adult competition, does it?

I think it IS an achievement -- even if it is not Earth-shattering -- for a player, playing as he or she usually does on Lichess, to get 10 wins in a row.

And I do not think I betray some failure to comprehend reality by thinking that. I've demonstrated my understanding of the math already in this thread. I've played chess online for a long time.

And although I'm not incapable of believing nonsense, I suppose -- nothing I've said in this thread is "nonsensical" -- unless, perhaps, it was intended in a humorous way.

Fortunately, you and I are free to disagree, and neither of us needs to feel bad about that. Life goes on (I hope).

@Noflaps said in #63:

I haven't understood anything, @Inventor_1 ?

Oh. Perhaps you could examine my earlier post #35 attempting to provide a mathematical approximation of an average case (keeping in mind that Lichess appears to provide us with a selection of visible seeks that centers more or less around our own ratings).

My calculation provides a "rough feel" for the ordinary circumstance.

Of course, it could be nitpicked -- as, for example, by noting that the chance of winning against an evenly-matched player (the average opponent, ordinarily) is not precisely 50 percent, and draws do slightly effect the probabilities, as well. But my simplified -- easy-to-grasp calculation shouldn't be far wrong. And it's only intended as an approximation.

And I do know more than a bit about math. Although I've probably forgotten more than I still know. Specialization tends to happen in life, after all.

Or perhaps you could review my admission in #54 that I could probably beat a 400-rated player easily, 10 times in a row.

But, as I noted, that is not ordinary, everyday play. Such an atypical competition doesn't really say much about ordinary online play,

Fortunately, Lichess does not serve me up such an unfair selection of selectable games against players with wildly lower ratings. And I don't think Lichess treats me unusually. I think most of us routinely face a pretty reasonable, sensible selection of opponents against whom we are not wildly over- or under-matched.

And that effects my estimation of the probabilities. The fact that I could outrun a relative tyke ten times in a row doesn't mean I'll win all ten road races against typical adult competition, does it?

I think it IS an achievement -- even if it is not Earth-shattering -- for a player, playing as he or she usually does on Lichess, to get 10 wins in a row.

And I do not think I betray some failure to comprehend reality by thinking that. I've demonstrated my understanding of the math already in this thread. I've played chess online for a long time.

And although I'm not incapable of believing nonsense, I suppose -- nothing I've said in this thread is "nonsensical" -- unless, perhaps, it was intended in a humorous way.

Fortunately, you and I are free to disagree, and neither of us needs to feel bad about that. Life goes on (I hope).

According to the terms of the problem, can your opponents be any? Any. That means, for example, even 1000 rating points lower. And what is the expected score with a difference of 1000 rating points? About 243:1. Now try to arrange the games in a match of 244 games (in any way most convenient for you) so that there are no series of 10 victories in a row. ))) What, almost the entire match consists of these series? Even a series of more than 100 victories in a row is possible in many scenarios? That's it! What's not clear? How can you not understand this?

@Noflaps said in #63:

I haven't understood anything, @Inventor_1 ?

Oh. Perhaps you could examine my earlier post #35 attempting to provide a mathematical approximation of an average case (keeping in mind that Lichess appears to provide us with a selection of visible seeks that centers more or less around our own ratings).

My calculation provides a "rough feel" for the ordinary circumstance.

Of course, it could be nitpicked -- as, for example, by noting that the chance of winning against an evenly-matched player (the average opponent, ordinarily) is not precisely 50 percent, and draws do slightly effect the probabilities, as well. But my simplified -- easy-to-grasp calculation shouldn't be far wrong. And it's only intended as an approximation.

And I do know more than a bit about math. Although I've probably forgotten more than I still know. Specialization tends to happen in life, after all.

Or perhaps you could review my admission in #54 that I could probably beat a 400-rated player easily, 10 times in a row.

But, as I noted, that is not ordinary, everyday play. Such an atypical competition doesn't really say much about ordinary online play,

Fortunately, Lichess does not serve me up such an unfair selection of selectable games against players with wildly lower ratings. And I don't think Lichess treats me unusually. I think most of us routinely face a pretty reasonable, sensible selection of opponents against whom we are not wildly over- or under-matched.

And that effects my estimation of the probabilities. The fact that I could outrun a relative tyke ten times in a row doesn't mean I'll win all ten road races against typical adult competition, does it?

I think it IS an achievement -- even if it is not Earth-shattering -- for a player, playing as he or she usually does on Lichess, to get 10 wins in a row.

And I do not think I betray some failure to comprehend reality by thinking that. I've demonstrated my understanding of the math already in this thread. I've played chess online for a long time.

And although I'm not incapable of believing nonsense, I suppose -- nothing I've said in this thread is "nonsensical" -- unless, perhaps, it was intended in a humorous way.

Fortunately, you and I are free to disagree, and neither of us needs to feel bad about that. Life goes on (I hope).

And it is very easy to get an opponent with a rating 1000 points lower for a match (and beat him 10:0). For example, offer to play a match with the first person you meet. Say that he has a chance to play with a much stronger opponent (under normal conditions, many people never get such a chance in their entire lives; for example, I have never had this happen, except for games with a computer; but with a computer it is not the same game as with people, and there must be a special anti-computer, otherwise defeat is inevitable). One will not agree if (he will be completely stupid and will miss such a chance, which he may never have again), but the other will agree.

If you wish to, and can somehow manage, to arrange 10 matches in a row against a player rated 1000 points lower than you, no doubt you'll have no trouble winning ten in a row!

And if you do that, I will not shout "not fair, not fair" at you. By all means, we can all make choices.

The average player will not typically be playing 10 lop-sided games in a row, however. And for them, the achievement I imagined should be cause for a bit of celebration, I think.

Is it necessary, or even important, to declare that achievement would be trivial -- under those typical, expectable circumstances? Well, again, you can choose to think so if you wish.

I know with video games, it's possible sometimes to use "cheat codes" that make the game easier. Does that render their "achievements" necessarily trivial? I think most people enjoy the achievements anyway, even though some -- under relatively unusual circumstances -- can easily achieve them.

The point is -- under typical circumstances most people CAN'T easily achieve them.

And under typical play -- not play taking special pains to play only vastly-less-experienced players -- it IS something of an achievement to win 10 in a row.

I'm not convinced this topic is of sufficient importance to debate it indefinitely.

I hoped and still hope that the thread will give some -- SOME -- people a bit of a good feeling if and when THEY manage to win 10 in a row. And I don't really care how they do it, frankly, so long as they do it consistent with Lichess rules. Under ordinary circumstances, it doesn't happen every day, I think. Far from it.

If not everybody cares about the achievement? Fine. It's not as if the suggestion of an achievement is somehow official. It's not.

I think it's time for me to move on. If somebody wants to take the last word, I won't resent it. The thread was meant to be a bit whimsical and fun. Not terribly serious.

@Noflaps said in #66:

If you wish to, and can somehow manage, to arrange 10 matches in a row against a player rated 1000 points lower than you, no doubt you'll have no trouble winning ten in a row!

And if you do that, I will not shout "not fair, not fair" at you. By all means, we can all make choices.

The average player will not typically be playing 10 lop-sided games in a row, however. And for them, the achievement I imagined should be cause for a bit of celebration, I think.

Is it necessary, or even important, to declare that achievement would be trivial -- under those typical, expectable circumstances? Well, again, you can choose to think so if you wish.

I know with video games, it's possible sometimes to use "cheat codes" that make the game easier. Does that render their "achievements" necessarily trivial? I think most people enjoy the achievements anyway, even though some -- under relatively unusual circumstances -- can easily achieve them.

The point is -- under typical circumstances most people CAN'T easily achieve them.

And under typical play -- not play taking special pains to play only vastly-less-experienced players -- it IS something of an achievement to win 10 in a row.

I'm not convinced this topic is of sufficient importance to debate it indefinitely.

I hoped and still hope that the thread will give some -- SOME -- people a bit of a good feeling if and when THEY manage to win 10 in a row. And I don't really care how they do it, frankly, so long as they do it consistent with Lichess rules. Under ordinary circumstances, it doesn't happen every day, I think. Far from it.

If not everybody cares about the achievement? Fine. It's not as if the suggestion of an achievement is somehow official. It's not.

I think it's time for me to move on. If somebody wants to take the last word, I won't resent it. The thread was meant to be a bit whimsical and fun. Not terribly serious.

It is a great luck for a weaker player if a stronger player agrees to play with him for some reason. And especially a match. And especially a big match. And especially a colossally stronger player. In fact, many people are ready to pay money for this and do pay. And, for example, even specifically I, even specifically here on Lichess, have a good friend with ratings about 600 points lower, who himself approached me and really asked to play training matches with him sometimes. I agreed, on the condition that this would only happen when it is very convenient for me. Since then, we have been playing like this. He writes to me sometimes. I usually refuse (I feel uncomfortable at those moments). But when it was convenient for me, we already played. And we plan to in the future. He is very grateful to me for this, he says thank you. I do not beat him dry, he sometimes scores points against me. He scores significantly more than he should based on the rating difference, an inconvenient opponent for me (I score several times more anyway, of course), there is also benefit for me to play with him (but he benefits a lot more).

@Noflaps said in #66:

If you wish to, and can somehow manage, to arrange 10 matches in a row against a player rated 1000 points lower than you, no doubt you'll have no trouble winning ten in a row!

And if you do that, I will not shout "not fair, not fair" at you. By all means, we can all make choices.

The average player will not typically be playing 10 lop-sided games in a row, however. And for them, the achievement I imagined should be cause for a bit of celebration, I think.

Is it necessary, or even important, to declare that achievement would be trivial -- under those typical, expectable circumstances? Well, again, you can choose to think so if you wish.

I know with video games, it's possible sometimes to use "cheat codes" that make the game easier. Does that render their "achievements" necessarily trivial? I think most people enjoy the achievements anyway, even though some -- under relatively unusual circumstances -- can easily achieve them.

The point is -- under typical circumstances most people CAN'T easily achieve them.

And under typical play -- not play taking special pains to play only vastly-less-experienced players -- it IS something of an achievement to win 10 in a row.

I'm not convinced this topic is of sufficient importance to debate it indefinitely.

I hoped and still hope that the thread will give some -- SOME -- people a bit of a good feeling if and when THEY manage to win 10 in a row. And I don't really care how they do it, frankly, so long as they do it consistent with Lichess rules. Under ordinary circumstances, it doesn't happen every day, I think. Far from it.

If not everybody cares about the achievement? Fine. It's not as if the suggestion of an achievement is somehow official. It's not.

I think it's time for me to move on. If somebody wants to take the last word, I won't resent it. The thread was meant to be a bit whimsical and fun. Not terribly serious.

And I already explained to you that you should have formulated the task a little differently, and then it would not have been absurd, but correct and interesting. If I had set the limit of about 200 rating points in the task (more details in my previous comment about this).