What is the draw frequency for 3 consecutive games (same players; amateur level)?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
In Mr. Robot (TV series) episode "eps2.2_init_1.asec", Elliot and Mr. Robot drew 3 consecutive chess games. They remark it's impossible.
The odds of that are Impossible.
As far as TV shows go, Mr. Robot is known for its technical accuracy. I was surprised when I heard that line, so I fact-checked it:
From Wikipedia:
[Frequency of draws] is currently "holding pretty steady around 50%, and is only increasing at a very slow rate".
I understand that figure is for top-level tournaments, not 3 consecutive games from the same 2 players. Is there are any accuracy to that statement in the show? If not, is it different from the 50% rate for top-level players?
draw statistics
|
show 3 more comments
In Mr. Robot (TV series) episode "eps2.2_init_1.asec", Elliot and Mr. Robot drew 3 consecutive chess games. They remark it's impossible.
The odds of that are Impossible.
As far as TV shows go, Mr. Robot is known for its technical accuracy. I was surprised when I heard that line, so I fact-checked it:
From Wikipedia:
[Frequency of draws] is currently "holding pretty steady around 50%, and is only increasing at a very slow rate".
I understand that figure is for top-level tournaments, not 3 consecutive games from the same 2 players. Is there are any accuracy to that statement in the show? If not, is it different from the 50% rate for top-level players?
draw statistics
Just to be clear: Mr. Robot is a person, and not some superhuman android or something?
– D M
Feb 25 at 3:38
According to Wikipedia, Mr.Robot is a human being who is a computer genius. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Robot
– Rewan Demontay
Feb 25 at 3:55
Both Elliot and Mr. Robot are humans / computer geniuses / hackers. There is no indication that they are more than amateurs in chess.
– Federico Poloni
Feb 25 at 8:36
3
I just read online, that Elliot actually STALEMATED Mr. Robot three times - I will re-watch and confirm that episode after work, I only recall the games being... a little suspicious. ;) If that would be the case however, Elliot's remark may be understood as talking about the odds of him making the same mistake multiple times.
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:00
3
@BenjaminRaabe "suspicious" is an understatement. The games are replays of well-known constructions of stalemate. While the moves are legal, you'd never see those games played in a competitive situation.
– BowlOfRed
Feb 25 at 9:19
|
show 3 more comments
In Mr. Robot (TV series) episode "eps2.2_init_1.asec", Elliot and Mr. Robot drew 3 consecutive chess games. They remark it's impossible.
The odds of that are Impossible.
As far as TV shows go, Mr. Robot is known for its technical accuracy. I was surprised when I heard that line, so I fact-checked it:
From Wikipedia:
[Frequency of draws] is currently "holding pretty steady around 50%, and is only increasing at a very slow rate".
I understand that figure is for top-level tournaments, not 3 consecutive games from the same 2 players. Is there are any accuracy to that statement in the show? If not, is it different from the 50% rate for top-level players?
draw statistics
In Mr. Robot (TV series) episode "eps2.2_init_1.asec", Elliot and Mr. Robot drew 3 consecutive chess games. They remark it's impossible.
The odds of that are Impossible.
As far as TV shows go, Mr. Robot is known for its technical accuracy. I was surprised when I heard that line, so I fact-checked it:
From Wikipedia:
[Frequency of draws] is currently "holding pretty steady around 50%, and is only increasing at a very slow rate".
I understand that figure is for top-level tournaments, not 3 consecutive games from the same 2 players. Is there are any accuracy to that statement in the show? If not, is it different from the 50% rate for top-level players?
draw statistics
draw statistics
asked Feb 25 at 0:53
JoeJoe
414
414
Just to be clear: Mr. Robot is a person, and not some superhuman android or something?
– D M
Feb 25 at 3:38
According to Wikipedia, Mr.Robot is a human being who is a computer genius. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Robot
– Rewan Demontay
Feb 25 at 3:55
Both Elliot and Mr. Robot are humans / computer geniuses / hackers. There is no indication that they are more than amateurs in chess.
– Federico Poloni
Feb 25 at 8:36
3
I just read online, that Elliot actually STALEMATED Mr. Robot three times - I will re-watch and confirm that episode after work, I only recall the games being... a little suspicious. ;) If that would be the case however, Elliot's remark may be understood as talking about the odds of him making the same mistake multiple times.
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:00
3
@BenjaminRaabe "suspicious" is an understatement. The games are replays of well-known constructions of stalemate. While the moves are legal, you'd never see those games played in a competitive situation.
– BowlOfRed
Feb 25 at 9:19
|
show 3 more comments
Just to be clear: Mr. Robot is a person, and not some superhuman android or something?
– D M
Feb 25 at 3:38
According to Wikipedia, Mr.Robot is a human being who is a computer genius. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Robot
– Rewan Demontay
Feb 25 at 3:55
Both Elliot and Mr. Robot are humans / computer geniuses / hackers. There is no indication that they are more than amateurs in chess.
– Federico Poloni
Feb 25 at 8:36
3
I just read online, that Elliot actually STALEMATED Mr. Robot three times - I will re-watch and confirm that episode after work, I only recall the games being... a little suspicious. ;) If that would be the case however, Elliot's remark may be understood as talking about the odds of him making the same mistake multiple times.
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:00
3
@BenjaminRaabe "suspicious" is an understatement. The games are replays of well-known constructions of stalemate. While the moves are legal, you'd never see those games played in a competitive situation.
– BowlOfRed
Feb 25 at 9:19
Just to be clear: Mr. Robot is a person, and not some superhuman android or something?
– D M
Feb 25 at 3:38
Just to be clear: Mr. Robot is a person, and not some superhuman android or something?
– D M
Feb 25 at 3:38
According to Wikipedia, Mr.Robot is a human being who is a computer genius. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Robot
– Rewan Demontay
Feb 25 at 3:55
According to Wikipedia, Mr.Robot is a human being who is a computer genius. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Robot
– Rewan Demontay
Feb 25 at 3:55
Both Elliot and Mr. Robot are humans / computer geniuses / hackers. There is no indication that they are more than amateurs in chess.
– Federico Poloni
Feb 25 at 8:36
Both Elliot and Mr. Robot are humans / computer geniuses / hackers. There is no indication that they are more than amateurs in chess.
– Federico Poloni
Feb 25 at 8:36
3
3
I just read online, that Elliot actually STALEMATED Mr. Robot three times - I will re-watch and confirm that episode after work, I only recall the games being... a little suspicious. ;) If that would be the case however, Elliot's remark may be understood as talking about the odds of him making the same mistake multiple times.
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:00
I just read online, that Elliot actually STALEMATED Mr. Robot three times - I will re-watch and confirm that episode after work, I only recall the games being... a little suspicious. ;) If that would be the case however, Elliot's remark may be understood as talking about the odds of him making the same mistake multiple times.
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:00
3
3
@BenjaminRaabe "suspicious" is an understatement. The games are replays of well-known constructions of stalemate. While the moves are legal, you'd never see those games played in a competitive situation.
– BowlOfRed
Feb 25 at 9:19
@BenjaminRaabe "suspicious" is an understatement. The games are replays of well-known constructions of stalemate. While the moves are legal, you'd never see those games played in a competitive situation.
– BowlOfRed
Feb 25 at 9:19
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
Definitely not impossible! It is true that draws are less frequent in amateur chess, and it is also true that draws are less frequent for faster games (how fast was the game in the show?), but even so, let's say that for a blitz game between evenly matched amateurs the draw frequency were 5%, or 1/20. If you played three games, the odds of playing three draws would be 1/8000, which while unlikely, is hardly "impossible". This is assuming that the probabilities are independent, which may not be entirely true but I think is close enough for a rough estimate.
I don't have an academic citation, but if you want some stats for online games you can look at the Lichess opening book: https://lichess.org/analysis . Normally it shows master-level games, but if you click on the settings you can chose to look at Lichess games instead, and filter by rating and time control. For blitz games at rating 1600, the draw frequency is 4-5%, depending on the opening move (the draw is the small gray stripe without a percentage, so you have to compute it by difference):
For the highest ratings, it's closer to 10% for blitz. And for classical chess, as you know, it's about 50% for top-level chess. For amateur chess I'd say maybe 10-20% but it depends on which level of amateur we are talking about. I won't cite the Lichess stats here because even though they have a "classical" category, it's really what would called rapid in over-the-board tournaments (30 min games in Lichess; OTB classical is usually 2 hours or more).
1
lol this is exactly what I was going to do. Have an upvote!
– Brandon_J
Feb 25 at 3:55
The recent TCEC superfinal between the Stockfish and Leela engines had 81 draws of 100 games, with openings handpicked to give one side a moderate advantage. It seems the top engines are approaching 100% draws
– JollyJoker
Feb 25 at 8:24
The games were crazy fast, or at least filmed in a way that suggests them playing bullet or Hyper-Bullet (30s).
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:06
I got some more statistics from lichess for the 30-60s + 0 time controls. Draw rate (Draw + Stalemate) is around 3%. :) imgur.com/a/RnNI1Sy
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 27 at 14:11
add a comment |
From a transcript at https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=mr-robot-2015&episode=s02e04
You just need to be able to see ahead of your opponent.
But how can
you when your other opponent is you? Stalemate.
Three in a row.
The
odds of that are Impossible.
So the impossibility mentioned can be interpreted to be three stalemates in a row, not simply three draws. I could not quickly find a reference to the stalemate rate, but it must be significantly less than the draw rate, and the cube of it will therefore tend a bit closer to "impossible".
I don't know if the moves in the show are meant to be real games or just a nod to the audience that is looking closely (kind of like the in-jokes written in tiny print on "Star Trek" displays). But the first two are reported to be the Loyd 10-move stalemate and the final game is Minerva's fastest known double stalemate. (I don't have a copy of the video to confirm this)
Because they are "constructed" puzzles, neither would be expected in a competitive game, only a cooperation scenario. That may or may not mean something in the context of the episode.
add a comment |
As standard math says, probability of same event happening in a row for N
times is:
PeN
where Pe is single event probability.
So if we take as standard draw probability 50%, then event of having 3 draws in a row between some players will be 1/23 = 0,125 = 12.5%
. Thus not impossible, but unlikely.
However there can be specific pairs of players which always plays at optimal strategy for each-other, so that their games mostly ends in a draw.
1
12.5% isn't "highly unlikely" at all. It means that, if you played three games a day, you'd expect to get three draws almost once a week. Also, the 50% draw rate is in long-format games between grandmasters; quicker games between amateurs have a much lower rate of draws.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 11:15
@DavidRicherby. I've changed to simplyunlikely
, but in principle it's just a play of words. I simply had in mind that statistically probability of NOT getting a draw 3-times in a row is87.5%
, so this is much more likely. You can't argue with mathematics
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 12:55
It's not "a play of words": it's a significant change of meaning. I can't argue with the fact that, if three independent events occur with probability p, then all three occur together with probability p^3. But I can (and did!) argue with your choice of p=1/2, which does not reflect reality, and the implicit claim of independence, though the latter probably isn't significant in this case.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 13:01
I never said that 50% is "carved in a rock", this was just as an example - have you noticed word 'if' ? And yes - I know that these events must be independent for formula to apply. I can't image dependent events in this case - unless with each start of new game players gets more drunk :-D BTW, 50Į-60% is not also for grandmasters and between computer chess programs too.
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 13:12
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "435"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23807%2fwhat-is-the-draw-frequency-for-3-consecutive-games-same-players-amateur-level%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Definitely not impossible! It is true that draws are less frequent in amateur chess, and it is also true that draws are less frequent for faster games (how fast was the game in the show?), but even so, let's say that for a blitz game between evenly matched amateurs the draw frequency were 5%, or 1/20. If you played three games, the odds of playing three draws would be 1/8000, which while unlikely, is hardly "impossible". This is assuming that the probabilities are independent, which may not be entirely true but I think is close enough for a rough estimate.
I don't have an academic citation, but if you want some stats for online games you can look at the Lichess opening book: https://lichess.org/analysis . Normally it shows master-level games, but if you click on the settings you can chose to look at Lichess games instead, and filter by rating and time control. For blitz games at rating 1600, the draw frequency is 4-5%, depending on the opening move (the draw is the small gray stripe without a percentage, so you have to compute it by difference):
For the highest ratings, it's closer to 10% for blitz. And for classical chess, as you know, it's about 50% for top-level chess. For amateur chess I'd say maybe 10-20% but it depends on which level of amateur we are talking about. I won't cite the Lichess stats here because even though they have a "classical" category, it's really what would called rapid in over-the-board tournaments (30 min games in Lichess; OTB classical is usually 2 hours or more).
1
lol this is exactly what I was going to do. Have an upvote!
– Brandon_J
Feb 25 at 3:55
The recent TCEC superfinal between the Stockfish and Leela engines had 81 draws of 100 games, with openings handpicked to give one side a moderate advantage. It seems the top engines are approaching 100% draws
– JollyJoker
Feb 25 at 8:24
The games were crazy fast, or at least filmed in a way that suggests them playing bullet or Hyper-Bullet (30s).
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:06
I got some more statistics from lichess for the 30-60s + 0 time controls. Draw rate (Draw + Stalemate) is around 3%. :) imgur.com/a/RnNI1Sy
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 27 at 14:11
add a comment |
Definitely not impossible! It is true that draws are less frequent in amateur chess, and it is also true that draws are less frequent for faster games (how fast was the game in the show?), but even so, let's say that for a blitz game between evenly matched amateurs the draw frequency were 5%, or 1/20. If you played three games, the odds of playing three draws would be 1/8000, which while unlikely, is hardly "impossible". This is assuming that the probabilities are independent, which may not be entirely true but I think is close enough for a rough estimate.
I don't have an academic citation, but if you want some stats for online games you can look at the Lichess opening book: https://lichess.org/analysis . Normally it shows master-level games, but if you click on the settings you can chose to look at Lichess games instead, and filter by rating and time control. For blitz games at rating 1600, the draw frequency is 4-5%, depending on the opening move (the draw is the small gray stripe without a percentage, so you have to compute it by difference):
For the highest ratings, it's closer to 10% for blitz. And for classical chess, as you know, it's about 50% for top-level chess. For amateur chess I'd say maybe 10-20% but it depends on which level of amateur we are talking about. I won't cite the Lichess stats here because even though they have a "classical" category, it's really what would called rapid in over-the-board tournaments (30 min games in Lichess; OTB classical is usually 2 hours or more).
1
lol this is exactly what I was going to do. Have an upvote!
– Brandon_J
Feb 25 at 3:55
The recent TCEC superfinal between the Stockfish and Leela engines had 81 draws of 100 games, with openings handpicked to give one side a moderate advantage. It seems the top engines are approaching 100% draws
– JollyJoker
Feb 25 at 8:24
The games were crazy fast, or at least filmed in a way that suggests them playing bullet or Hyper-Bullet (30s).
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:06
I got some more statistics from lichess for the 30-60s + 0 time controls. Draw rate (Draw + Stalemate) is around 3%. :) imgur.com/a/RnNI1Sy
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 27 at 14:11
add a comment |
Definitely not impossible! It is true that draws are less frequent in amateur chess, and it is also true that draws are less frequent for faster games (how fast was the game in the show?), but even so, let's say that for a blitz game between evenly matched amateurs the draw frequency were 5%, or 1/20. If you played three games, the odds of playing three draws would be 1/8000, which while unlikely, is hardly "impossible". This is assuming that the probabilities are independent, which may not be entirely true but I think is close enough for a rough estimate.
I don't have an academic citation, but if you want some stats for online games you can look at the Lichess opening book: https://lichess.org/analysis . Normally it shows master-level games, but if you click on the settings you can chose to look at Lichess games instead, and filter by rating and time control. For blitz games at rating 1600, the draw frequency is 4-5%, depending on the opening move (the draw is the small gray stripe without a percentage, so you have to compute it by difference):
For the highest ratings, it's closer to 10% for blitz. And for classical chess, as you know, it's about 50% for top-level chess. For amateur chess I'd say maybe 10-20% but it depends on which level of amateur we are talking about. I won't cite the Lichess stats here because even though they have a "classical" category, it's really what would called rapid in over-the-board tournaments (30 min games in Lichess; OTB classical is usually 2 hours or more).
Definitely not impossible! It is true that draws are less frequent in amateur chess, and it is also true that draws are less frequent for faster games (how fast was the game in the show?), but even so, let's say that for a blitz game between evenly matched amateurs the draw frequency were 5%, or 1/20. If you played three games, the odds of playing three draws would be 1/8000, which while unlikely, is hardly "impossible". This is assuming that the probabilities are independent, which may not be entirely true but I think is close enough for a rough estimate.
I don't have an academic citation, but if you want some stats for online games you can look at the Lichess opening book: https://lichess.org/analysis . Normally it shows master-level games, but if you click on the settings you can chose to look at Lichess games instead, and filter by rating and time control. For blitz games at rating 1600, the draw frequency is 4-5%, depending on the opening move (the draw is the small gray stripe without a percentage, so you have to compute it by difference):
For the highest ratings, it's closer to 10% for blitz. And for classical chess, as you know, it's about 50% for top-level chess. For amateur chess I'd say maybe 10-20% but it depends on which level of amateur we are talking about. I won't cite the Lichess stats here because even though they have a "classical" category, it's really what would called rapid in over-the-board tournaments (30 min games in Lichess; OTB classical is usually 2 hours or more).
edited Feb 25 at 2:53
answered Feb 25 at 2:37
itubitub
4,22711229
4,22711229
1
lol this is exactly what I was going to do. Have an upvote!
– Brandon_J
Feb 25 at 3:55
The recent TCEC superfinal between the Stockfish and Leela engines had 81 draws of 100 games, with openings handpicked to give one side a moderate advantage. It seems the top engines are approaching 100% draws
– JollyJoker
Feb 25 at 8:24
The games were crazy fast, or at least filmed in a way that suggests them playing bullet or Hyper-Bullet (30s).
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:06
I got some more statistics from lichess for the 30-60s + 0 time controls. Draw rate (Draw + Stalemate) is around 3%. :) imgur.com/a/RnNI1Sy
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 27 at 14:11
add a comment |
1
lol this is exactly what I was going to do. Have an upvote!
– Brandon_J
Feb 25 at 3:55
The recent TCEC superfinal between the Stockfish and Leela engines had 81 draws of 100 games, with openings handpicked to give one side a moderate advantage. It seems the top engines are approaching 100% draws
– JollyJoker
Feb 25 at 8:24
The games were crazy fast, or at least filmed in a way that suggests them playing bullet or Hyper-Bullet (30s).
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:06
I got some more statistics from lichess for the 30-60s + 0 time controls. Draw rate (Draw + Stalemate) is around 3%. :) imgur.com/a/RnNI1Sy
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 27 at 14:11
1
1
lol this is exactly what I was going to do. Have an upvote!
– Brandon_J
Feb 25 at 3:55
lol this is exactly what I was going to do. Have an upvote!
– Brandon_J
Feb 25 at 3:55
The recent TCEC superfinal between the Stockfish and Leela engines had 81 draws of 100 games, with openings handpicked to give one side a moderate advantage. It seems the top engines are approaching 100% draws
– JollyJoker
Feb 25 at 8:24
The recent TCEC superfinal between the Stockfish and Leela engines had 81 draws of 100 games, with openings handpicked to give one side a moderate advantage. It seems the top engines are approaching 100% draws
– JollyJoker
Feb 25 at 8:24
The games were crazy fast, or at least filmed in a way that suggests them playing bullet or Hyper-Bullet (30s).
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:06
The games were crazy fast, or at least filmed in a way that suggests them playing bullet or Hyper-Bullet (30s).
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:06
I got some more statistics from lichess for the 30-60s + 0 time controls. Draw rate (Draw + Stalemate) is around 3%. :) imgur.com/a/RnNI1Sy
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 27 at 14:11
I got some more statistics from lichess for the 30-60s + 0 time controls. Draw rate (Draw + Stalemate) is around 3%. :) imgur.com/a/RnNI1Sy
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 27 at 14:11
add a comment |
From a transcript at https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=mr-robot-2015&episode=s02e04
You just need to be able to see ahead of your opponent.
But how can
you when your other opponent is you? Stalemate.
Three in a row.
The
odds of that are Impossible.
So the impossibility mentioned can be interpreted to be three stalemates in a row, not simply three draws. I could not quickly find a reference to the stalemate rate, but it must be significantly less than the draw rate, and the cube of it will therefore tend a bit closer to "impossible".
I don't know if the moves in the show are meant to be real games or just a nod to the audience that is looking closely (kind of like the in-jokes written in tiny print on "Star Trek" displays). But the first two are reported to be the Loyd 10-move stalemate and the final game is Minerva's fastest known double stalemate. (I don't have a copy of the video to confirm this)
Because they are "constructed" puzzles, neither would be expected in a competitive game, only a cooperation scenario. That may or may not mean something in the context of the episode.
add a comment |
From a transcript at https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=mr-robot-2015&episode=s02e04
You just need to be able to see ahead of your opponent.
But how can
you when your other opponent is you? Stalemate.
Three in a row.
The
odds of that are Impossible.
So the impossibility mentioned can be interpreted to be three stalemates in a row, not simply three draws. I could not quickly find a reference to the stalemate rate, but it must be significantly less than the draw rate, and the cube of it will therefore tend a bit closer to "impossible".
I don't know if the moves in the show are meant to be real games or just a nod to the audience that is looking closely (kind of like the in-jokes written in tiny print on "Star Trek" displays). But the first two are reported to be the Loyd 10-move stalemate and the final game is Minerva's fastest known double stalemate. (I don't have a copy of the video to confirm this)
Because they are "constructed" puzzles, neither would be expected in a competitive game, only a cooperation scenario. That may or may not mean something in the context of the episode.
add a comment |
From a transcript at https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=mr-robot-2015&episode=s02e04
You just need to be able to see ahead of your opponent.
But how can
you when your other opponent is you? Stalemate.
Three in a row.
The
odds of that are Impossible.
So the impossibility mentioned can be interpreted to be three stalemates in a row, not simply three draws. I could not quickly find a reference to the stalemate rate, but it must be significantly less than the draw rate, and the cube of it will therefore tend a bit closer to "impossible".
I don't know if the moves in the show are meant to be real games or just a nod to the audience that is looking closely (kind of like the in-jokes written in tiny print on "Star Trek" displays). But the first two are reported to be the Loyd 10-move stalemate and the final game is Minerva's fastest known double stalemate. (I don't have a copy of the video to confirm this)
Because they are "constructed" puzzles, neither would be expected in a competitive game, only a cooperation scenario. That may or may not mean something in the context of the episode.
From a transcript at https://www.springfieldspringfield.co.uk/view_episode_scripts.php?tv-show=mr-robot-2015&episode=s02e04
You just need to be able to see ahead of your opponent.
But how can
you when your other opponent is you? Stalemate.
Three in a row.
The
odds of that are Impossible.
So the impossibility mentioned can be interpreted to be three stalemates in a row, not simply three draws. I could not quickly find a reference to the stalemate rate, but it must be significantly less than the draw rate, and the cube of it will therefore tend a bit closer to "impossible".
I don't know if the moves in the show are meant to be real games or just a nod to the audience that is looking closely (kind of like the in-jokes written in tiny print on "Star Trek" displays). But the first two are reported to be the Loyd 10-move stalemate and the final game is Minerva's fastest known double stalemate. (I don't have a copy of the video to confirm this)
Because they are "constructed" puzzles, neither would be expected in a competitive game, only a cooperation scenario. That may or may not mean something in the context of the episode.
answered Feb 25 at 17:17
BowlOfRedBowlOfRed
1312
1312
add a comment |
add a comment |
As standard math says, probability of same event happening in a row for N
times is:
PeN
where Pe is single event probability.
So if we take as standard draw probability 50%, then event of having 3 draws in a row between some players will be 1/23 = 0,125 = 12.5%
. Thus not impossible, but unlikely.
However there can be specific pairs of players which always plays at optimal strategy for each-other, so that their games mostly ends in a draw.
1
12.5% isn't "highly unlikely" at all. It means that, if you played three games a day, you'd expect to get three draws almost once a week. Also, the 50% draw rate is in long-format games between grandmasters; quicker games between amateurs have a much lower rate of draws.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 11:15
@DavidRicherby. I've changed to simplyunlikely
, but in principle it's just a play of words. I simply had in mind that statistically probability of NOT getting a draw 3-times in a row is87.5%
, so this is much more likely. You can't argue with mathematics
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 12:55
It's not "a play of words": it's a significant change of meaning. I can't argue with the fact that, if three independent events occur with probability p, then all three occur together with probability p^3. But I can (and did!) argue with your choice of p=1/2, which does not reflect reality, and the implicit claim of independence, though the latter probably isn't significant in this case.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 13:01
I never said that 50% is "carved in a rock", this was just as an example - have you noticed word 'if' ? And yes - I know that these events must be independent for formula to apply. I can't image dependent events in this case - unless with each start of new game players gets more drunk :-D BTW, 50Į-60% is not also for grandmasters and between computer chess programs too.
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 13:12
add a comment |
As standard math says, probability of same event happening in a row for N
times is:
PeN
where Pe is single event probability.
So if we take as standard draw probability 50%, then event of having 3 draws in a row between some players will be 1/23 = 0,125 = 12.5%
. Thus not impossible, but unlikely.
However there can be specific pairs of players which always plays at optimal strategy for each-other, so that their games mostly ends in a draw.
1
12.5% isn't "highly unlikely" at all. It means that, if you played three games a day, you'd expect to get three draws almost once a week. Also, the 50% draw rate is in long-format games between grandmasters; quicker games between amateurs have a much lower rate of draws.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 11:15
@DavidRicherby. I've changed to simplyunlikely
, but in principle it's just a play of words. I simply had in mind that statistically probability of NOT getting a draw 3-times in a row is87.5%
, so this is much more likely. You can't argue with mathematics
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 12:55
It's not "a play of words": it's a significant change of meaning. I can't argue with the fact that, if three independent events occur with probability p, then all three occur together with probability p^3. But I can (and did!) argue with your choice of p=1/2, which does not reflect reality, and the implicit claim of independence, though the latter probably isn't significant in this case.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 13:01
I never said that 50% is "carved in a rock", this was just as an example - have you noticed word 'if' ? And yes - I know that these events must be independent for formula to apply. I can't image dependent events in this case - unless with each start of new game players gets more drunk :-D BTW, 50Į-60% is not also for grandmasters and between computer chess programs too.
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 13:12
add a comment |
As standard math says, probability of same event happening in a row for N
times is:
PeN
where Pe is single event probability.
So if we take as standard draw probability 50%, then event of having 3 draws in a row between some players will be 1/23 = 0,125 = 12.5%
. Thus not impossible, but unlikely.
However there can be specific pairs of players which always plays at optimal strategy for each-other, so that their games mostly ends in a draw.
As standard math says, probability of same event happening in a row for N
times is:
PeN
where Pe is single event probability.
So if we take as standard draw probability 50%, then event of having 3 draws in a row between some players will be 1/23 = 0,125 = 12.5%
. Thus not impossible, but unlikely.
However there can be specific pairs of players which always plays at optimal strategy for each-other, so that their games mostly ends in a draw.
edited Feb 25 at 12:29
answered Feb 25 at 8:18
Agnius VasiliauskasAgnius Vasiliauskas
1294
1294
1
12.5% isn't "highly unlikely" at all. It means that, if you played three games a day, you'd expect to get three draws almost once a week. Also, the 50% draw rate is in long-format games between grandmasters; quicker games between amateurs have a much lower rate of draws.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 11:15
@DavidRicherby. I've changed to simplyunlikely
, but in principle it's just a play of words. I simply had in mind that statistically probability of NOT getting a draw 3-times in a row is87.5%
, so this is much more likely. You can't argue with mathematics
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 12:55
It's not "a play of words": it's a significant change of meaning. I can't argue with the fact that, if three independent events occur with probability p, then all three occur together with probability p^3. But I can (and did!) argue with your choice of p=1/2, which does not reflect reality, and the implicit claim of independence, though the latter probably isn't significant in this case.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 13:01
I never said that 50% is "carved in a rock", this was just as an example - have you noticed word 'if' ? And yes - I know that these events must be independent for formula to apply. I can't image dependent events in this case - unless with each start of new game players gets more drunk :-D BTW, 50Į-60% is not also for grandmasters and between computer chess programs too.
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 13:12
add a comment |
1
12.5% isn't "highly unlikely" at all. It means that, if you played three games a day, you'd expect to get three draws almost once a week. Also, the 50% draw rate is in long-format games between grandmasters; quicker games between amateurs have a much lower rate of draws.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 11:15
@DavidRicherby. I've changed to simplyunlikely
, but in principle it's just a play of words. I simply had in mind that statistically probability of NOT getting a draw 3-times in a row is87.5%
, so this is much more likely. You can't argue with mathematics
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 12:55
It's not "a play of words": it's a significant change of meaning. I can't argue with the fact that, if three independent events occur with probability p, then all three occur together with probability p^3. But I can (and did!) argue with your choice of p=1/2, which does not reflect reality, and the implicit claim of independence, though the latter probably isn't significant in this case.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 13:01
I never said that 50% is "carved in a rock", this was just as an example - have you noticed word 'if' ? And yes - I know that these events must be independent for formula to apply. I can't image dependent events in this case - unless with each start of new game players gets more drunk :-D BTW, 50Į-60% is not also for grandmasters and between computer chess programs too.
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 13:12
1
1
12.5% isn't "highly unlikely" at all. It means that, if you played three games a day, you'd expect to get three draws almost once a week. Also, the 50% draw rate is in long-format games between grandmasters; quicker games between amateurs have a much lower rate of draws.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 11:15
12.5% isn't "highly unlikely" at all. It means that, if you played three games a day, you'd expect to get three draws almost once a week. Also, the 50% draw rate is in long-format games between grandmasters; quicker games between amateurs have a much lower rate of draws.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 11:15
@DavidRicherby. I've changed to simply
unlikely
, but in principle it's just a play of words. I simply had in mind that statistically probability of NOT getting a draw 3-times in a row is 87.5%
, so this is much more likely. You can't argue with mathematics– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 12:55
@DavidRicherby. I've changed to simply
unlikely
, but in principle it's just a play of words. I simply had in mind that statistically probability of NOT getting a draw 3-times in a row is 87.5%
, so this is much more likely. You can't argue with mathematics– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 12:55
It's not "a play of words": it's a significant change of meaning. I can't argue with the fact that, if three independent events occur with probability p, then all three occur together with probability p^3. But I can (and did!) argue with your choice of p=1/2, which does not reflect reality, and the implicit claim of independence, though the latter probably isn't significant in this case.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 13:01
It's not "a play of words": it's a significant change of meaning. I can't argue with the fact that, if three independent events occur with probability p, then all three occur together with probability p^3. But I can (and did!) argue with your choice of p=1/2, which does not reflect reality, and the implicit claim of independence, though the latter probably isn't significant in this case.
– David Richerby
Feb 25 at 13:01
I never said that 50% is "carved in a rock", this was just as an example - have you noticed word 'if' ? And yes - I know that these events must be independent for formula to apply. I can't image dependent events in this case - unless with each start of new game players gets more drunk :-D BTW, 50Į-60% is not also for grandmasters and between computer chess programs too.
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 13:12
I never said that 50% is "carved in a rock", this was just as an example - have you noticed word 'if' ? And yes - I know that these events must be independent for formula to apply. I can't image dependent events in this case - unless with each start of new game players gets more drunk :-D BTW, 50Į-60% is not also for grandmasters and between computer chess programs too.
– Agnius Vasiliauskas
Feb 25 at 13:12
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Chess Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fchess.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f23807%2fwhat-is-the-draw-frequency-for-3-consecutive-games-same-players-amateur-level%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Just to be clear: Mr. Robot is a person, and not some superhuman android or something?
– D M
Feb 25 at 3:38
According to Wikipedia, Mr.Robot is a human being who is a computer genius. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Robot
– Rewan Demontay
Feb 25 at 3:55
Both Elliot and Mr. Robot are humans / computer geniuses / hackers. There is no indication that they are more than amateurs in chess.
– Federico Poloni
Feb 25 at 8:36
3
I just read online, that Elliot actually STALEMATED Mr. Robot three times - I will re-watch and confirm that episode after work, I only recall the games being... a little suspicious. ;) If that would be the case however, Elliot's remark may be understood as talking about the odds of him making the same mistake multiple times.
– Benjamin Raabe
Feb 25 at 9:00
3
@BenjaminRaabe "suspicious" is an understatement. The games are replays of well-known constructions of stalemate. While the moves are legal, you'd never see those games played in a competitive situation.
– BowlOfRed
Feb 25 at 9:19