andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1290 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
Introduction: Daniel Murrell writes: I see you have a blog post about turing chess . . . I’ve seen another reference to it but am unable to find a definitive source. Do you know of a source where I could find out about the history of the idea? My reply: You mean the run-around-the-house thing? I don’t know where it comes from. It’s a well known story, if you google Turing chess run around the house you can find lots of references but I don’t know the definitive source. I can blog and see if anything comes up! I’ve never actually played the game. I’ll try it outdoors sometime, perhaps. When I last posted on the topic, we had a fun discussion, revealing that the rules are not as clear as one might think. It makes me wonder if anyone’s thought hard about it and come up with a good set of “official rules.” Any thoughts?
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 Daniel Murrell writes: I see you have a blog post about turing chess . [sent-1, score-0.967]
2 I’ve seen another reference to it but am unable to find a definitive source. [sent-4, score-0.91]
3 Do you know of a source where I could find out about the history of the idea? [sent-5, score-0.51]
4 My reply: You mean the run-around-the-house thing? [sent-6, score-0.068]
5 It’s a well known story, if you google Turing chess run around the house you can find lots of references but I don’t know the definitive source. [sent-8, score-1.65]
6 When I last posted on the topic, we had a fun discussion, revealing that the rules are not as clear as one might think. [sent-12, score-0.636]
7 It makes me wonder if anyone’s thought hard about it and come up with a good set of “official rules. [sent-13, score-0.415]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('turing', 0.394), ('chess', 0.342), ('definitive', 0.334), ('outdoors', 0.239), ('murrell', 0.202), ('unable', 0.197), ('find', 0.174), ('revealing', 0.173), ('sometime', 0.169), ('comes', 0.157), ('played', 0.149), ('official', 0.139), ('daniel', 0.132), ('references', 0.13), ('reference', 0.121), ('house', 0.121), ('know', 0.115), ('rules', 0.115), ('source', 0.113), ('google', 0.108), ('history', 0.108), ('blog', 0.106), ('posted', 0.104), ('fun', 0.104), ('known', 0.097), ('thoughts', 0.092), ('anyone', 0.092), ('run', 0.091), ('wonder', 0.089), ('seen', 0.084), ('ve', 0.081), ('topic', 0.08), ('clear', 0.071), ('try', 0.07), ('lots', 0.07), ('reply', 0.069), ('come', 0.069), ('hard', 0.069), ('last', 0.069), ('mean', 0.068), ('set', 0.068), ('around', 0.068), ('anything', 0.068), ('story', 0.066), ('never', 0.065), ('see', 0.063), ('post', 0.062), ('makes', 0.061), ('thought', 0.059), ('discussion', 0.058)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0000001 1290 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-I suppose it’s too late to add Turing’s run-around-the-house-chess to the 2012 London Olympics?
Introduction: Daniel Murrell writes: I see you have a blog post about turing chess . . . I’ve seen another reference to it but am unable to find a definitive source. Do you know of a source where I could find out about the history of the idea? My reply: You mean the run-around-the-house thing? I don’t know where it comes from. It’s a well known story, if you google Turing chess run around the house you can find lots of references but I don’t know the definitive source. I can blog and see if anything comes up! I’ve never actually played the game. I’ll try it outdoors sometime, perhaps. When I last posted on the topic, we had a fun discussion, revealing that the rules are not as clear as one might think. It makes me wonder if anyone’s thought hard about it and come up with a good set of “official rules.” Any thoughts?
2 0.33004397 1473 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-28-Turing chess run update
Introduction: In honor of the Olympics , I got my butt over to the park and played run-around-the-house chess for the first time ever. As was discussed in the comments thread awhile ago , there seem to be three possible ways to play Turing chess: 1. You make your move and run around the house. The other player has to move before you return. Once you sit down to the table, the other player runs around the house. Then you have to move, etc. You lose if you are checkmated or if you fail to move before your opponent returns to his chair. 2. You make your move and run around the house. The other player has to move before you return, but he does not have to wait until you return to start running. He can start running once he’s moved. Then when you get back you have to move before he gets back, but you can start to run once you’ve moved, etc. 3. You make your move and run around the house. The other player takes as long as he wants and makes his move, then he runs. When you return, yo
3 0.26948169 1638 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-25-Diving chess
Introduction: Knowing of my interest in Turing run-around-the-house chess , David Lockhart points me to this : Diving Chess is a chess variant, which is played in a swimming pool. Instead of using chess clocks, each player must submerge themselves underwater during their turn, only to resurface when they are ready to make a move. Players must make a move within 5 seconds of resurfacing (they will receive a warning if not, and three warnings will result in a forfeit). Diving Chess was invented by American Chess Master Etan Ilfeld; the very first exhibition game took place between Ilfeld and former British Chess Champion William Hartston at the Thirdspace gym in Soho on August 2nd, 2011. Hartston won the match which lasted almost two hours such that each player was underwater for an entire hour.
4 0.26637435 1818 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-22-Goal: Rules for Turing chess
Introduction: Daniel Murell has more thoughts on Turing chess (last discussed here ): When I played with my brother, we had it that if you managed to lap someone while running around the house, then you got an additional move. This means that if you had the option to take the king on your additional move, you could, and doing so won you the game. He was fitter at the time so he slipped in two additional moves over the course of the game. I still won :) I am much better at him at chess though, so I’m sure he would have beaten me had we been more even. W.r.t. dsquared’s comment and your response, I’m not overly concerned about the first move, because you can enforce that white must reach a halfway point or that some time interval elapse before black makes his first move. This version though does have one significant weakness that is evident to me. If you wait a little for your opponent to return to make his second move in a row against you, you get your breath back. He couldn’t plan for th
5 0.23098253 615 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-16-Chess vs. checkers
Introduction: Mark Palko writes : Chess derives most of its complexity through differentiated pieces; with checkers the complexity comes from the interaction between pieces. The result is a series of elegant graph problems where the viable paths change with each move of your opponent. To draw an analogy with chess, imagine if moving your knight could allow your opponent’s bishop to move like a rook. Add to that the potential for traps and manipulation that come with forced capture and you have one of the most remarkable games of all time. . . . It’s not unusual to hear masters of both chess and checkers (draughts) to admit that they prefer the latter. So why does chess get all the respect? Why do you never see a criminal mastermind or a Bond villain playing in a checkers tournament? Part of the problem is that we learn the game as children so we tend to think of it as a children’s game. We focus on how simple the rules are and miss how much complexity and subtlety you can get out of those ru
6 0.19583274 1899 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-14-Turing chess tournament!
7 0.15197542 1847 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-08-Of parsing and chess
8 0.13176902 1164 andrew gelman stats-2012-02-13-Help with this problem, win valuable prizes
9 0.12225005 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
10 0.12191277 1292 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-01-Colorless green facts asserted resolutely
11 0.11299425 216 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-18-More forecasting competitions
12 0.085297324 313 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-03-A question for psychometricians
13 0.081856519 1782 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-30-“Statistical Modeling: A Fresh Approach”
14 0.080981247 587 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-24-5 seconds of every #1 pop single
15 0.080192506 430 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-25-The von Neumann paradox
16 0.079725936 2264 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-24-On deck this month
17 0.079076953 220 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-Why I blog?
18 0.076903254 1832 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The blogroll
19 0.074767277 806 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-17-6 links
20 0.074481852 218 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-I think you knew this already
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.143), (1, -0.05), (2, -0.04), (3, 0.042), (4, 0.034), (5, -0.015), (6, 0.066), (7, -0.031), (8, 0.077), (9, -0.025), (10, 0.026), (11, 0.022), (12, 0.048), (13, -0.018), (14, -0.016), (15, 0.018), (16, -0.055), (17, -0.005), (18, -0.006), (19, 0.017), (20, -0.052), (21, 0.049), (22, -0.03), (23, 0.048), (24, 0.032), (25, 0.075), (26, 0.018), (27, 0.053), (28, -0.008), (29, -0.13), (30, 0.097), (31, -0.129), (32, -0.015), (33, 0.001), (34, 0.032), (35, -0.04), (36, -0.051), (37, -0.003), (38, 0.062), (39, 0.132), (40, -0.048), (41, 0.07), (42, 0.095), (43, -0.0), (44, 0.015), (45, -0.096), (46, 0.08), (47, -0.039), (48, 0.006), (49, 0.023)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.91667831 1290 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-I suppose it’s too late to add Turing’s run-around-the-house-chess to the 2012 London Olympics?
Introduction: Daniel Murrell writes: I see you have a blog post about turing chess . . . I’ve seen another reference to it but am unable to find a definitive source. Do you know of a source where I could find out about the history of the idea? My reply: You mean the run-around-the-house thing? I don’t know where it comes from. It’s a well known story, if you google Turing chess run around the house you can find lots of references but I don’t know the definitive source. I can blog and see if anything comes up! I’ve never actually played the game. I’ll try it outdoors sometime, perhaps. When I last posted on the topic, we had a fun discussion, revealing that the rules are not as clear as one might think. It makes me wonder if anyone’s thought hard about it and come up with a good set of “official rules.” Any thoughts?
2 0.91068071 615 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-16-Chess vs. checkers
Introduction: Mark Palko writes : Chess derives most of its complexity through differentiated pieces; with checkers the complexity comes from the interaction between pieces. The result is a series of elegant graph problems where the viable paths change with each move of your opponent. To draw an analogy with chess, imagine if moving your knight could allow your opponent’s bishop to move like a rook. Add to that the potential for traps and manipulation that come with forced capture and you have one of the most remarkable games of all time. . . . It’s not unusual to hear masters of both chess and checkers (draughts) to admit that they prefer the latter. So why does chess get all the respect? Why do you never see a criminal mastermind or a Bond villain playing in a checkers tournament? Part of the problem is that we learn the game as children so we tend to think of it as a children’s game. We focus on how simple the rules are and miss how much complexity and subtlety you can get out of those ru
3 0.88642305 1473 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-28-Turing chess run update
Introduction: In honor of the Olympics , I got my butt over to the park and played run-around-the-house chess for the first time ever. As was discussed in the comments thread awhile ago , there seem to be three possible ways to play Turing chess: 1. You make your move and run around the house. The other player has to move before you return. Once you sit down to the table, the other player runs around the house. Then you have to move, etc. You lose if you are checkmated or if you fail to move before your opponent returns to his chair. 2. You make your move and run around the house. The other player has to move before you return, but he does not have to wait until you return to start running. He can start running once he’s moved. Then when you get back you have to move before he gets back, but you can start to run once you’ve moved, etc. 3. You make your move and run around the house. The other player takes as long as he wants and makes his move, then he runs. When you return, yo
4 0.87152863 1818 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-22-Goal: Rules for Turing chess
Introduction: Daniel Murell has more thoughts on Turing chess (last discussed here ): When I played with my brother, we had it that if you managed to lap someone while running around the house, then you got an additional move. This means that if you had the option to take the king on your additional move, you could, and doing so won you the game. He was fitter at the time so he slipped in two additional moves over the course of the game. I still won :) I am much better at him at chess though, so I’m sure he would have beaten me had we been more even. W.r.t. dsquared’s comment and your response, I’m not overly concerned about the first move, because you can enforce that white must reach a halfway point or that some time interval elapse before black makes his first move. This version though does have one significant weakness that is evident to me. If you wait a little for your opponent to return to make his second move in a row against you, you get your breath back. He couldn’t plan for th
5 0.86584336 1638 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-25-Diving chess
Introduction: Knowing of my interest in Turing run-around-the-house chess , David Lockhart points me to this : Diving Chess is a chess variant, which is played in a swimming pool. Instead of using chess clocks, each player must submerge themselves underwater during their turn, only to resurface when they are ready to make a move. Players must make a move within 5 seconds of resurfacing (they will receive a warning if not, and three warnings will result in a forfeit). Diving Chess was invented by American Chess Master Etan Ilfeld; the very first exhibition game took place between Ilfeld and former British Chess Champion William Hartston at the Thirdspace gym in Soho on August 2nd, 2011. Hartston won the match which lasted almost two hours such that each player was underwater for an entire hour.
6 0.82785183 1847 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-08-Of parsing and chess
7 0.81483215 218 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-I think you knew this already
8 0.7664538 1467 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-23-The pinch-hitter syndrome again
9 0.74598253 2105 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-18-What’s my Kasparov number?
10 0.7256065 813 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-21-Scrabble!
11 0.67810667 216 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-18-More forecasting competitions
12 0.62717986 634 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-A.I. is Whatever We Can’t Yet Automate
13 0.58649147 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
14 0.58100617 881 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-30-Rickey Henderson and Peter Angelos, together again
16 0.55706996 665 andrew gelman stats-2011-04-17-Yes, your wish shall be granted (in 25 years)
17 0.55601817 29 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-12-Probability of successive wins in baseball
18 0.55340731 2300 andrew gelman stats-2014-04-21-Ticket to Baaaath
19 0.55136687 1831 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The Great Race
20 0.54459304 260 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-07-QB2
topicId topicWeight
[(16, 0.035), (24, 0.139), (48, 0.024), (77, 0.016), (84, 0.028), (85, 0.028), (86, 0.035), (89, 0.166), (95, 0.034), (99, 0.374)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.98065716 566 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-09-The boxer, the wrestler, and the coin flip, again
Introduction: Mike Grosskopf writes: I came across your blog the other day and noticed your paper about “The Boxer, the Wrestler, and the Coin Flip” . . . I do not understand the objection to the robust Bayesian inference for conditioning on X=Y in the problem as you describe in the paper. The paper talks about how using Robust Bayes when conditioning on X=Y “degrades our inference about the coin flip” and “has led us to the claim that we can say nothing at all about the coin flip”. Does that have to be the case however, because while conditioning on X=Y does mean that p({X=1}|{X=Y}I) = p({Y=1}|{X=Y}I), I don’t see why it has to mean that both have the same π-distribution where Pr(Y = 1) = π. Which type of inference is being done about Y in the problem? If you are trying to make an inference on the results of the fight between the boxer and the wrestler that has already happened, in which your friend tells you that either the boxer won and he flipped heads with a coin or the boxer lost a
2 0.97740889 1855 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-13-Stan!
Introduction: Guy Freeman writes: I thought you’d all like to know that Stan was used and referenced in a peer-reviewed Rapid Communications paper on influenza. Thank you for this excellent modelling language and sampler, which made it possible to carry out this work quickly! I haven’t actually read the paper, but I’m happy to see Stan getting around like that.
3 0.97465938 850 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-11-Understanding how estimates change when you move to a multilevel model
Introduction: Ramu Sudhagoni writes: I am working on combining three longitudinal studies using Bayesian hierarchical technique. In each study, I have at least 70 subjects follow up on 5 different visit months. My model consists of 10 different covariates including longitudinal and cross-sectional effects. Mixed models are used to fit the three studies individually using Bayesian approach and I noticed that few covariates were significant. When I combined using three level hierarchical approach, all the covariates became non-significant at the population level, and large estimates were found for variance parameters at the population level. I am struggling to understand why I am getting large variances at population level and wider credible intervals. I assumed non-informative normal priors for all my cross sectional and longitudinal effects, and non-informative inverse-gamma priors for variance parameters. I followed the approach explained by Inoue et al. (Title: Combining Longitudinal Studie
4 0.97357261 833 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-31-Untunable Metropolis
Introduction: Michael Margolis writes: What are we to make of it when a Metropolis-Hastings step just won’t tune? That is, the acceptance rate is zero at expected-jump-size X, and way above 1/2 at X-exp(-16) (i.e., machine precision ). I’ve solved my practical problem by writing that I would have liked to include results from a diffuse prior, but couldn’t. But I’m bothered by the poverty of my intuition. And since everything I’ve read says this is an issue of efficiency, rather than accuracy, I wonder if I could solve it just by running massive and heavily thinned chains. My reply: I can’t see how this could happen in a well-specified problem! I suspect it’s a bug. Otherwise try rescaling your variables so that your parameters will have values on the order of magnitude of 1. To which Margolis responded: I hardly wrote any of the code, so I can’t speak to the bug question — it’s binomial kriging from the R package geoRglm. And there are no covariates to scale — just the zero and one
5 0.97207344 623 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-21-Baseball’s greatest fielders
Introduction: Someone just stopped by and dropped off a copy of the book Wizardry: Baseball’s All-time Greatest Fielders Revealed, by Michael Humphreys. I don’t have much to say about the topic–I did see Brooks Robinson play, but I don’t remember any fancy plays. I must have seen Mark Belanger but I don’t really recall. Ozzie Smith was cool but I saw only him on TV. The most impressive thing I ever saw live was Rickey Henderson stealing a base. The best thing about that was that everyone was expecting him to steal the base, and he still was able to do it. But that wasn’t fielding either. Anyway, Humphreys was nice enough to give me a copy of his book, and since I can’t say much (I didn’t have it in me to study the formulas in detail, nor do I know enough to be able to evaluate them), I might as well say what I can say right away. (Note: Humphreys replies to some of these questions in a comment .) 1. Near the beginning, Humphreys says that 10 runs are worth about 1 win. I’ve always b
6 0.97035736 1628 andrew gelman stats-2012-12-17-Statistics in a world where nothing is random
7 0.96819961 459 andrew gelman stats-2010-12-09-Solve mazes by starting at the exit
8 0.96797705 231 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Yet another Bayesian job opportunity
9 0.96640962 407 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Data Visualization vs. Statistical Graphics
10 0.96598685 1756 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-10-He said he was sorry
11 0.96398032 1783 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-31-He’s getting ready to write a book
12 0.96366942 1320 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-14-Question 4 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
13 0.96347141 1991 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-21-BDA3 table of contents (also a new paper on visualization)
same-blog 14 0.96294421 1290 andrew gelman stats-2012-04-30-I suppose it’s too late to add Turing’s run-around-the-house-chess to the 2012 London Olympics?
15 0.96002322 1903 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-17-Weak identification provides partial information
16 0.95309842 2267 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-26-Is a steal really worth 9 points?
17 0.94780958 1702 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-01-Don’t let your standard errors drive your research agenda
18 0.94437921 1839 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-04-Jesus historian Niall Ferguson and the improving standards of public discourse
19 0.94230443 1572 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-10-I don’t like this cartoon