andrew_gelman_stats andrew_gelman_stats-2012 andrew_gelman_stats-2012-1473 knowledge-graph by maker-knowledge-mining
Source: html
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
sentIndex sentText sentNum sentScore
1 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. [sent-1, score-0.933]
2 Once you sit down to the table, the other player runs around the house. [sent-5, score-0.563]
3 You lose if you are checkmated or if you fail to move before your opponent returns to his chair. [sent-7, score-0.502]
4 The other player has to move before you return, but he does not have to wait until you return to start running. [sent-10, score-0.756]
5 Then when you get back you have to move before he gets back, but you can start to run once you’ve moved, etc. [sent-12, score-0.684]
6 The other player takes as long as he wants and makes his move, then he runs. [sent-15, score-0.351]
7 In this version, it’s possible to make two moves in a row. [sent-17, score-0.318]
8 It would go like this: player A moves and starts to run, then player B immediately moves, runs so hard that he catches up to and passes A, then sits down and quickly moves before A gets back. [sent-18, score-1.22]
9 (I am excluding all possible rules that involve chess clocks, because to me a key feature of Turing chess is its beautiful simplicity, that the running provides the time control directly. [sent-19, score-1.359]
10 I’d guess that in version 1 the dominant strategy would be for both players to be jogging, except maybe for a few points during the game where your opponent has a tough choice to make and it’s worth your effort to sprint to give him less time to think. [sent-22, score-0.901]
11 In addition, version 1 has the fatal flaw, at least in theory, that at any time you can simply sit on a stoop halfway around the house and think as long as you want. [sent-23, score-0.755]
12 Sure, this would give time to your opponent, too, but if you think you need the time you’d have that opportunity for delay. [sent-24, score-0.192]
13 Version 2 is what we played in the park yesterday (ok, not really yesterday, remember that this blog is on a lag). [sent-26, score-0.272]
14 The result was a running race with essentially no chess, just exhaustion as we sprinted back and forth. [sent-28, score-0.439]
15 Essentially this was bullet chess but it ended when one runner caught up with the other. [sent-29, score-0.698]
16 This could make things interesting but it changes the game on the board from chess to a chess variant. [sent-31, score-1.245]
17 If you’re the faster runner and you’re close to catching up, you can time things just right and do your two moves. [sent-32, score-0.28]
18 The result is that it’s not quite chess anymore. [sent-34, score-0.515]
19 Right now I’m thinking that version 1 is the best, if supplemented by a rule saying that you have to run, so that walking, sitting, or standing are not allowed. [sent-35, score-0.292]
20 This enforces some minimal level of effort and maximal level of time for each move. [sent-36, score-0.265]
wordName wordTfidf (topN-words)
[('chess', 0.515), ('move', 0.3), ('player', 0.292), ('version', 0.23), ('turing', 0.216), ('opponent', 0.202), ('run', 0.199), ('moves', 0.173), ('running', 0.173), ('runner', 0.131), ('game', 0.13), ('played', 0.122), ('around', 0.112), ('return', 0.099), ('time', 0.096), ('park', 0.086), ('make', 0.085), ('sit', 0.083), ('runs', 0.076), ('race', 0.074), ('back', 0.069), ('house', 0.066), ('enforces', 0.065), ('butt', 0.065), ('sprinted', 0.065), ('start', 0.065), ('yesterday', 0.064), ('play', 0.062), ('supplemented', 0.062), ('clocks', 0.062), ('possible', 0.06), ('long', 0.059), ('essentially', 0.058), ('catches', 0.057), ('olympics', 0.057), ('passes', 0.055), ('sprint', 0.055), ('halfway', 0.055), ('fatal', 0.054), ('effort', 0.053), ('catching', 0.053), ('walking', 0.052), ('lag', 0.052), ('bullet', 0.052), ('gets', 0.051), ('sits', 0.051), ('maximal', 0.051), ('anticipate', 0.05), ('dominant', 0.05), ('honor', 0.049)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 1.0 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
2 0.53009242 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
3 0.44854051 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 0.39127687 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
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?
6 0.26175281 1847 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-08-Of parsing and chess
7 0.23429631 1903 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-17-Weak identification provides partial information
8 0.17678609 218 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-I think you knew this already
9 0.17473102 813 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-21-Scrabble!
10 0.1645793 1292 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-01-Colorless green facts asserted resolutely
11 0.14749141 216 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-18-More forecasting competitions
12 0.14638785 348 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-17-Joanne Gowa scooped me by 22 years in my criticism of Axelrod’s Evolution of Cooperation
13 0.13567169 1899 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-14-Turing chess tournament!
14 0.13209312 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
15 0.11235615 2105 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-18-What’s my Kasparov number?
16 0.10502659 2267 andrew gelman stats-2014-03-26-Is a steal really worth 9 points?
17 0.10308264 1831 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-29-The Great Race
18 0.10207836 260 andrew gelman stats-2010-09-07-QB2
19 0.10129561 1323 andrew gelman stats-2012-05-16-Question 6 of my final exam for Design and Analysis of Sample Surveys
20 0.099157989 1708 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-05-Wouldn’t it be cool if Glenn Hubbard were consulting for Herbalife and I were on the other side?
topicId topicWeight
[(0, 0.134), (1, -0.052), (2, 0.001), (3, 0.048), (4, 0.041), (5, -0.017), (6, 0.076), (7, -0.027), (8, 0.053), (9, -0.049), (10, 0.003), (11, 0.024), (12, -0.013), (13, -0.038), (14, -0.046), (15, -0.002), (16, 0.005), (17, -0.039), (18, 0.005), (19, -0.002), (20, -0.078), (21, 0.114), (22, -0.016), (23, 0.115), (24, 0.03), (25, 0.117), (26, 0.031), (27, 0.096), (28, -0.032), (29, -0.245), (30, 0.095), (31, -0.267), (32, -0.053), (33, 0.045), (34, 0.074), (35, -0.096), (36, -0.133), (37, 0.04), (38, 0.091), (39, 0.155), (40, -0.038), (41, 0.114), (42, 0.043), (43, 0.012), (44, 0.044), (45, -0.181), (46, 0.09), (47, -0.073), (48, 0.077), (49, 0.062)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
1 0.98420572 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.
same-blog 2 0.96536428 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 0.9511615 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
4 0.93919283 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 0.84088588 218 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-20-I think you knew this already
Introduction: I was playing out a chess game from the newspaper and we reminded how the best players use the entire board in their game. In my own games (I’m not very good, I’m guessing my “rating” would be something like 1500?), the action always gets concentrated on one part of the board. Grandmaster games do get focused on particular squares of the board, of course, but, meanwhile, there are implications in other places and the action can suddenly shift.
6 0.80185932 1847 andrew gelman stats-2013-05-08-Of parsing and chess
7 0.76213652 1467 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-23-The pinch-hitter syndrome again
8 0.75245309 813 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-21-Scrabble!
9 0.71185899 2105 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-18-What’s my Kasparov number?
11 0.65706247 216 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-18-More forecasting competitions
12 0.55590427 29 andrew gelman stats-2010-05-12-Probability of successive wins in baseball
13 0.55404025 1903 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-17-Weak identification provides partial information
14 0.5437901 1899 andrew gelman stats-2013-06-14-Turing chess tournament!
15 0.53773707 634 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-29-A.I. is Whatever We Can’t Yet Automate
16 0.51861548 559 andrew gelman stats-2011-02-06-Bidding for the kickoff
18 0.49608591 1731 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-21-If a lottery is encouraging addictive gambling, don’t expand it!
19 0.48603123 982 andrew gelman stats-2011-10-30-“There’s at least as much as an 80 percent chance . . .”
20 0.48355091 1773 andrew gelman stats-2013-03-21-2.15
topicId topicWeight
[(5, 0.022), (13, 0.033), (16, 0.078), (22, 0.015), (24, 0.192), (44, 0.014), (50, 0.011), (54, 0.098), (63, 0.012), (86, 0.036), (89, 0.098), (99, 0.249)]
simIndex simValue blogId blogTitle
same-blog 1 0.95904016 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
2 0.94511175 1572 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-10-I don’t like this cartoon
Introduction: Some people pointed me to this : I am happy to see statistical theory and methods be a topic in popular culture, and of course I’m glad that, contra Feller , the Bayesian is presented as the hero this time, but . . . . I think the lower-left panel of the cartoon unfairly misrepresents frequentist statisticians. Frequentist statisticians recognize many statistical goals. Point estimates trade off bias and variance. Interval estimates have the goal of achieving nominal coverage and the goal of being informative. Tests have the goals of calibration and power. Frequentists know that no single principle applies in all settings, and this is a setting where this particular method is clearly inappropriate. All statisticians use prior information in their statistical analysis. Non-Bayesians express their prior information not through a probability distribution on parameters but rather through their choice of methods. I think this non-Bayesian attitude is too restrictive, but in
3 0.93120444 1991 andrew gelman stats-2013-08-21-BDA3 table of contents (also a new paper on visualization)
Introduction: In response to our recent posting of Amazon’s offer of Bayesian Data Analysis 3rd edition at 40% off, some people asked what was in this new edition, with more information beyond the beautiful cover image and the brief paragraph I’d posted earlier. Here’s the table of contents. The following sections have all-new material: 1.4 New introduction of BDA principles using a simple spell checking example 2.9 Weakly informative prior distributions 5.7 Weakly informative priors for hierarchical variance parameters 7.1-7.4 Predictive accuracy for model evaluation and comparison 10.6 Computing environments 11.4 Split R-hat 11.5 New measure of effective number of simulation draws 13.7 Variational inference 13.8 Expectation propagation 13.9 Other approximations 14.6 Regularization for regression models C.1 Getting started with R and Stan C.2 Fitting a hierarchical model in Stan C.4 Programming Hamiltonian Monte Carlo in R And the new chapters: 20 Basis function models 2
4 0.92986846 1702 andrew gelman stats-2013-02-01-Don’t let your standard errors drive your research agenda
Introduction: Alexis Le Nestour writes: How do you test for no effect? I attended a seminar where the person assumed that a non significant difference between groups implied an absence of effect. In that case, the researcher needed to show that two groups were similar before being hit by a shock conditional on some observable variables. The assumption was that the two groups were similar and that the shock was random. What would be the good way to set up a test in that case? I know you’ve been through that before (http://andrewgelman.com/2009/02/not_statistical/) and there are interesting comments but I wanted to have your opinion on that. My reply: I think you have to get quantitative here. How similar is similar? Don’t let your standard errors drive your research agenda. Or, to put it another way, what would you do if you had all the data? If your sample size were 1 zillion, then everything would statistically distinguishable from everything else. And then you’d have to think about w
5 0.92981327 407 andrew gelman stats-2010-11-11-Data Visualization vs. Statistical Graphics
Introduction: I have this great talk on the above topic but nowhere to give it. Here’s the story. Several months ago, I was invited to speak at IEEE VisWeek. It sounded like a great opportunity. The organizer told me that there were typically about 700 people in the audience, and these are people in the visualization community whom I’d like to reach but normally wouldn’t have the opportunity to encounter. It sounded great, but I didn’t want to fly most of the way across the country by myself, so I offered to give the talk by videolink. I was surprised to get a No response: I’d think that a visualization conference, of all things, would welcome a video talk. In the meantime, though, I’d thought a lot about what I’d talk about and had started preparing something. Once I found out I wouldn’t be giving the talk, I channeled the efforts into an article which, with the collaboration of Antony Unwin, was completed about a month ago. It would take very little effort to adapt this graph-laden a
6 0.92954755 322 andrew gelman stats-2010-10-06-More on the differences between drugs and medical devices
7 0.92882347 833 andrew gelman stats-2011-07-31-Untunable Metropolis
8 0.92872059 1580 andrew gelman stats-2012-11-16-Stantastic!
9 0.9268012 846 andrew gelman stats-2011-08-09-Default priors update?
12 0.91939604 231 andrew gelman stats-2010-08-24-Yet another Bayesian job opportunity
13 0.91931111 2089 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-04-Shlemiel the Software Developer and Unknown Unknowns
14 0.9182595 2086 andrew gelman stats-2013-11-03-How best to compare effects measured in two different time periods?
15 0.91741848 1938 andrew gelman stats-2013-07-14-Learning how to speak
16 0.91688192 2121 andrew gelman stats-2013-12-02-Should personal genetic testing be regulated? Battle of the blogroll
17 0.91671538 1818 andrew gelman stats-2013-04-22-Goal: Rules for Turing chess
18 0.9138422 1474 andrew gelman stats-2012-08-29-More on scaled-inverse Wishart and prior independence
19 0.91376281 502 andrew gelman stats-2011-01-04-Cash in, cash out graph
20 0.91347408 615 andrew gelman stats-2011-03-16-Chess vs. checkers