Improbability.
-
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am
Improbability.
With insomnia my only excuse, I thought I'd share a curious statistic:
In the last 12 months I've played in 14 tournaments, and in every one of them had black in the last round.
I know that probability can be a tricky subject, and that any given uninteresting sequence is equally improbable before the outset, but it seems to me that the chances of this significant sequence occurring are 16,383 to 1. In other words a player participating in 14 tournaments every year would expect such a run approximately once every 16384 years!
Perhaps the odds are even longer than this, given that players on a plus score tend to get white slightly more than those on a minus score ( because in chess white scores approximately 54 %).
Here is the list, which, apart from none - FIDE rated Blackpool, is verifiable here:
https://ratings.fide.com/hist.phtml?event=400270
London Classic..Kerrigan.......(2277)........ B..1
Hastings..........La Garde......(GM 2576)....B..1/2
Malta.............Ahlander.......(IM 2406).....B..1/2
Blackpool........Allis.............(180 ECF)....B..1
West Eng.Ch....Brucey..........(2093)........B..1
Bristol............Meek...........(2093).........B..1
Euro Senior.....Bellia............(IM 2433).....B..1/2
South Wales....Chatalbashev...(GM 2516)....B..0
British Ch........Hawkins........(GM 2554)....B..0
Vienna............Gevorgyan.....(WIM 2206)..B...1
Coulsdon.........Cherniaev......(GM 2491)....B..1/2
Paignton.........Wheeler........(2117).........B..1
I. O. Man........ Tan..............(IM 2445).....B..1
World Senior.....Nikolic.........(GM 2603).....B..0
In the last 12 months I've played in 14 tournaments, and in every one of them had black in the last round.
I know that probability can be a tricky subject, and that any given uninteresting sequence is equally improbable before the outset, but it seems to me that the chances of this significant sequence occurring are 16,383 to 1. In other words a player participating in 14 tournaments every year would expect such a run approximately once every 16384 years!
Perhaps the odds are even longer than this, given that players on a plus score tend to get white slightly more than those on a minus score ( because in chess white scores approximately 54 %).
Here is the list, which, apart from none - FIDE rated Blackpool, is verifiable here:
https://ratings.fide.com/hist.phtml?event=400270
London Classic..Kerrigan.......(2277)........ B..1
Hastings..........La Garde......(GM 2576)....B..1/2
Malta.............Ahlander.......(IM 2406).....B..1/2
Blackpool........Allis.............(180 ECF)....B..1
West Eng.Ch....Brucey..........(2093)........B..1
Bristol............Meek...........(2093).........B..1
Euro Senior.....Bellia............(IM 2433).....B..1/2
South Wales....Chatalbashev...(GM 2516)....B..0
British Ch........Hawkins........(GM 2554)....B..0
Vienna............Gevorgyan.....(WIM 2206)..B...1
Coulsdon.........Cherniaev......(GM 2491)....B..1/2
Paignton.........Wheeler........(2117).........B..1
I. O. Man........ Tan..............(IM 2445).....B..1
World Senior.....Nikolic.........(GM 2603).....B..0
Last edited by Keith Arkell on Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:34 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Posts: 3178
- Joined: Mon Jun 24, 2013 2:30 pm
Re: Improbability.
Just think of all the money you could have won with foresight.
-
- Posts: 21301
- Joined: Tue Apr 15, 2008 2:51 pm
Re: Improbability.
It's probably lower than that, because given that tournaments will have similar numbers of rounds, similar fields and similar pairing rules, the assumption that events are independent you need to justify multiplying probabilities will break down. You might want to check what colour you had in the first round. In an event with an odd number of rounds, a player is likely to repeat his first round colour in the last round and reverse it in an event with an even number. That applies particularly to higher seeds given the colour preference rule of giving priority to the higher seed.Keith Arkell wrote:but it seems to me that the chances of this significant sequence occurring are 16,383 to 1.
-
- Posts: 2069
- Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2014 1:28 pm
- Location: Morecambe, Europe
Re: Improbability.
There is also the fact that you have the benefit of hindsight. There are nine equally memorable and improbable similar occurrences that would have caused you the same surprise: White in all last rounds and all black or all white in rounds 1-4 (assuming each congress had at leats 5 rounds). The odds of one of these happening comes down to more like 1700:1 (I haven't done the maths, which is not as straightforward as just dividing by 10). Still significant, but if beforehand you have a sufficient list of individually unlikely events the chances that one of them will occur will not be that dramatic.
This, of course, is the trick regularly used by the BBC weather with comments like 'And November saw a new record set for the coldest month ever recorded in Market Snodsbury' and 'rainfall of only 10mm in Barchester is the driest since records were begun by Archdeacon Grantley in the 1860s'
This, of course, is the trick regularly used by the BBC weather with comments like 'And November saw a new record set for the coldest month ever recorded in Market Snodsbury' and 'rainfall of only 10mm in Barchester is the driest since records were begun by Archdeacon Grantley in the 1860s'
-
- Posts: 1298
- Joined: Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:43 pm
- Location: Cumbria
Re: Improbability.
David Spiegelhalter (Winton Professor of the Public Understanding of Risk at the University of Cambridge) would be interested in this. See his interesting website: http://understandinguncertainty.org/coincidences and the write up of his BBC TV programme on Coincidences "
-
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm
Re: Improbability.
Perhaps you have offended the ne*us in some way? In which case you may wish to sacrifice a goat or bake a large pie as per the discussion hereKeith Arkell wrote:In the last 12 months I've played in 14 tournaments, and in every one of them had black in the last round.
(Incidentally, I can't trace the original post for the above discussion; I assume the thread was excised from the original in some way).
What colour did you have in the first game of each tournament?
Also, I don't understand this bit
I can see the opposite is true - that players who get white slightly more would tend to be on a plus score.Keith Arkell wrote:Perhaps the odds are even longer than this, given that players on a plus score tend to get white slightly more than those on a minus score ( because in chess white scores approximately 54 %).
Also also, do you know the ratio of whites to blacks throughout your (or anyone's) career?
Re: Improbability.
The answer is in the thread you linked to -Alistair Campbell wrote:Perhaps you have offended the ne*us in some way? In which case you may wish to sacrifice a goat or bake a large pie as per the discussion hereKeith Arkell wrote:In the last 12 months I've played in 14 tournaments, and in every one of them had black in the last round.
(Incidentally, I can't trace the original post for the above discussion; I assume the thread was excised from the original in some way)...
So, Paul G. was the originator, but he and his own posts seem to have been "excised" from the forum.LawrenceCooper wrote:Well you had white in your only game against me, not sure if you managed more whites or blacks in the tournament thoughPaul Georghiou wrote:
So am I just unfortunate? Or is something else going on? And should something be done about it?
-
- Posts: 928
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 2:10 am
Re: Improbability.
Error corrected, after I somehow combined Bristol and the Euro Senior into a single event ( well, it was at 3 in the morning).
I would have thought that any similarities in types of events ought to be completely negated by the rule that the arbiter tosses a coin for the colour of the top seed in round one, after which the higher scorer, or higher rated player has priority over keeping sequence. I see no colour bias in any of this.
At the British Ch the top seed alternates round 1 colour each year, and Malta, uniquely, was a Round Robin, drawn randomly.
Soz but I'm missing the point here completely.MJMcCready wrote:Just think of all the money you could have won with foresight.
13 of the 14 tournaments had an odd number of rounds ( 2x5, 2x7, 6x9, 1x10, 2x11 and 1x 13), and I had white in round one in 7 out of the 14.Roger de Coverly wrote:It's probably lower than that, because given that tournaments will have similar numbers of rounds, similar fields and similar pairing rules, the assumption that events are independent you need to justify multiplying probabilities will break down. You might want to check what colour you had in the first round. In an event with an odd number of rounds, a player is likely to repeat his first round colour in the last round and reverse it in an event with an even number. That applies particularly to higher seeds given the colour preference rule of giving priority to the higher seed.Keith Arkell wrote:but it seems to me that the chances of this significant sequence occurring are 16,383 to 1.
I would have thought that any similarities in types of events ought to be completely negated by the rule that the arbiter tosses a coin for the colour of the top seed in round one, after which the higher scorer, or higher rated player has priority over keeping sequence. I see no colour bias in any of this.
At the British Ch the top seed alternates round 1 colour each year, and Malta, uniquely, was a Round Robin, drawn randomly.
Yes, I understand this and agree, Michael. That is why I began tentatively ( 'I know that probability can be a tricky subject, bla bla bla'), but it started to become interesting to me about 8 months ago, and I have watched the sequence continue event after event since then.Michael Farthing wrote:There is also the fact that you have the benefit of hindsight. There are nine equally memorable and improbable similar occurrences that would have caused you the same surprise:..... Still significant, but if beforehand you have a sufficient list of individually unlikely events the chances that one of them will occur will not be that dramatic.
This, of course, is the trick regularly used by the BBC weather with comments like 'And November saw a new record set for the coldest month ever recorded in Market Snodsbury' and 'rainfall of only 10mm in Barchester is the driest since records were begun by Archdeacon Grantley in the 1860s'
Maybe I worded it badly, but my point was that because White scores about 54% in chess in general, therefore lower scorers in tournaments are more likely to have a long - term deficit of Whites and higher scorers vice=versa, and given that I am usually a higher scorer, therefore my number of whites in tournaments ought to be a long term plus ( including in the last rounds). This is interesting though, and I haven't checked it yet..Alistair Campbell wrote: Also, I don't understand this bitI can see the opposite is true - that players who get white slightly more would tend to be on a plus score.Keith Arkell wrote:Perhaps the odds are even longer than this, given that players on a plus score tend to get white slightly more than those on a minus score ( because in chess white scores approximately 54 %).
Also also, do you know the ratio of whites to blacks throughout your (or anyone's) career?
-
- Posts: 170
- Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 10:23 pm
Re: Improbability.
I am confused by this thread. There is a reference above to a link to a post by Paul Georgiou. I am not aware that he is or ever has been on this forum.
As regards its main point, odds of 16000 to 1 mean the probability of such a long sequence happening to Keith is extremely low. However considering that there are more than 16000 chess players in the country, means that the probability of such a sequence happening to someone is high.
As regards its main point, odds of 16000 to 1 mean the probability of such a long sequence happening to Keith is extremely low. However considering that there are more than 16000 chess players in the country, means that the probability of such a sequence happening to someone is high.
-
- Posts: 1420
- Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 6:31 pm
Re: Improbability.
Oh no it doesn't ! Keith is estimating a conditional probability. Very few players play 14 tournaments in a year.Neville Belinfante wrote:means that the probability of such a sequence happening to someone is high.
Re: Improbability.
To change the subject a lot, but keep it on colours and probabiliites, I can guess the sequence of runs of Black and Red cards in a randomly shuffled pack of cards better than anybody else in the world.
To be more specific, if you name a 3 card run of colours in a shuffled pack (say BBB, or RRB, or BRB) I will predict a sequence that will come up more often than yours in the pack.
Not many people understand conditional probability....
To be more specific, if you name a 3 card run of colours in a shuffled pack (say BBB, or RRB, or BRB) I will predict a sequence that will come up more often than yours in the pack.
Not many people understand conditional probability....
-
- Posts: 379
- Joined: Sat Mar 06, 2010 12:53 pm
Re: Improbability.
Thanks. That rules out one tentative theory.Keith Arkell wrote: and I had white in round one in 7 out of the 14.
This sort of thing give me a headache.Keith Arkell wrote:Maybe I worded it badly, but my point was that because White scores about 54% in chess in general, therefore lower scorers in tournaments are more likely to have a long - term deficit of Whites and higher scorers vice=versa, and given that I am usually a higher scorer, therefore my number of whites in tournaments ought to be a long term plus ( including in the last rounds). This is interesting though, and I haven't checked it yet..
I can believe that propensity to get white is correlated with the propensity to score relatively well. However, I can’t believe that scoring well causes the propensity to get white. I think low scoring is more likely to be better correlated with being a relatively worse player.
If people played in infinitely large swisses or leagues then would you expect performance to tend towards 50%? The more you won (lost) the more likely you are to be paired with better(worse) players or play a higher(lower) board or in a higher(lower) division. Only those at the top or bottom of the scales would tend to out- or under-perform. Of course, one can get into a rut where one is always a top player in a major or a lower player in an open and performance is biased appropriately. Similarly, colour bias could be introduced by a tendency only to play home games for example (if colours are predetermined) or choosing to take black on odds if the toss for colours is won.
I have a vague recollection that the complaint was over the number of tournaments in which the poster found himself with 3 blacks out of 5 (rather than a black in the last round). Why the post was deleted I’ve no idea.Neville Belinfante wrote:I am confused by this thread. There is a reference above to a link to a post by Paul Georgiou. I am not aware that he is or ever has been on this forum.
I’ve checked my database of my own games – 555 Whites (scoring 56.2%) and a massive 621 Blacks (scoring 49.5%). Overall I think that means white scores 53.2% and I’ve had 47.2% whites. I guess neither is remarkable.
-
- Posts: 3044
- Joined: Tue May 24, 2011 10:58 am
Re: Improbability.
Quickest way to get a propensity of whites is to score unusually badly with black (Leagues only of course.).
The other complication for colours/expected results for someone like Keith in a weekender is that for a lot of the rounds there's a huge strength difference, when the colours won't affect the expected results that much.
The other complication for colours/expected results for someone like Keith in a weekender is that for a lot of the rounds there's a huge strength difference, when the colours won't affect the expected results that much.