Latest Updates:
Poll
Poll closed Question: Candidates 2020 how to proceed (options below)
bars   pie
*** This poll has now closed ***


A    
  17 (77.3%)
B    
  1 (4.5%)
C    
  4 (18.2%)
D    
  0 (0.0%)
E    
  0 (0.0%)




Total votes: 22
« Created by: Confused_by_Theory on: 03/27/20 at 22:55:41 »
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Candidates 2020 how to proceed (Read 15443 times)
Bibs
God Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 2338
Joined: 10/24/06
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #26 - 04/03/20 at 05:18:45
Post Tools
Nice post RD!

For those of you who are into numbers, this may be of interest: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02nrss1/episodes/downloads
A podcast about stats. For non-stattos (I'm in this group). Interesting stuff, and clearly explained. Well, I found it interesting anyhow Smiley

Yeh, best wishes all. Crazy times, but when the sun comes out after a storm, people then do quickly forget it's been raining. And the sun will come out again...

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1667
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #25 - 04/03/20 at 03:44:32
Post Tools
Nice post, _and_ your math checks out.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
ReneDescartes
God Member
*****
Offline


Qu'est-ce donc que je
suis? Une chose qui pense.

Posts: 1236
Joined: 05/17/10
Gender: Male
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #24 - 04/02/20 at 21:53:45
Post Tools
This is one of those silly internet things where one of us makes a statement, as one might in conversation, that is mostly rhetorical (e.g., it's not likely all nine survive...), upon which another of us says it's technically false (e.g., (.99)^9>.5, ln(.5)÷ln(.99)>68), after which the first person feels attacked and tries to defend the statement as if he meant it as a studied opinion, and so on.

In defense of trw, if you imagine this as a conversation at a pub, the guy who takes it technically would look kind of out of it, like Mr. Spock. (Kirk: "what are the odds!" Spock: "approximately one in 96,562, Captain..." Kirk: "Sorry I asked.")

In further defense of trw, I will point out, Spocklike, that at trw's upper mortality rate of 10%, if >74.2% of the population gets infected (by about the time the tournament resumes, as herd immunity extinguishes the spread), the indicated result would indeed be more likely than not. Of course the players are young, etc., etc...

In even further defense of everyone, let's remember that the unfolding disaster has lots of people really wound up. I've had all kinds of friends and relatives say things that are out of character (or sometimes harsh things all-too-in-character that they would normally say more gently). In my mind I'm trying to issue everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card during this historic event.

Bless us all. I love these conversations. May we all do ok, even FIDE.
« Last Edit: 04/03/20 at 00:06:49 by ReneDescartes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #23 - 03/31/20 at 03:12:04
Post Tools
trw wrote on 03/30/20 at 14:53:02:
Worse case was 2.2 million deaths and that's when we thought the death percent was 2%, now it is generally accepted to be closer to 3%... but that doesn't account for NYC's unbelievably bad response where we will likely see 10%. So experts I have spoken with at the CDC have raised the max to 3.3 million deaths. On the low end, it's still around 500k. Again, we don't know. You're right that there is good reason to believe in Germany's .4% for a lot of the country... but the US has big rural populations which are also doing NOTHING to prepare themselves and also have very limited healthcare, ICU beds and medical equipment. Again, we don't know. To call the analysis sloppiness is both bullshit and the same rudeness I was accused of early in this post. I really wish people would stop stating stupid crappity smacking shit like this. I actually have family members working the front medical lines that are in the most at risk group. It is very likely that nearly everyone is going to lose someone they love dearly.  Cry And yet we still prance around the internet like the dumbest crap out of our mouths is worth saying to people.

From what little a person in my position can tell trw's numbers seem quite reasonable to me, especially the point about the huge potential range - certainly that is the main conclusion I have drawn from from the expert surveys. I don't know if this will be any consolation but assuming that 1% of population dies then the smallest group of people to have a greater than 50% chance of a death would be 69 (log base 0.99 of 0.5 is ~68.97) - so at least if you're as unloving and as I am then the odds of losing someone you love should be well below that. Best of luck to your family members on the medical front lines - no one deserves to make it through more than those actively fighting against this pandemic.
As a sidenote I agree that my contributions to this thread have derailed it a bit, and for that I apologise. Perhaps a moderator could move this discussion to a more appropriate location,
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1413
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #22 - 03/30/20 at 14:53:02
Post Tools
an ordinary chessplayer wrote on 03/30/20 at 01:11:15:
Jack Hughes wrote on 03/29/20 at 18:58:29:
trw wrote on 03/29/20 at 16:32:25:
The issue is that .4% or 10% is a huge differing variable. Right now, 500,000 to 3.3 million are likely to die in the US alone depending on how well we deal with the lockdown, medical supplies and the overwhelmed healthcare system... Given how poorly NYC has responded... I think the US is closely to 3 million than 500k... So we just don't have the data right now... but that means the probability of one of the 9 people dying is anywhere from 3.6% to 90% which is just an insane range. We don't know.

Okay, now I'm confused again. The US has a population of about 330 million people. Assuming that 3.3 million (1%) of them die in a given time frame then the odds of all nine surviving is 0.99^9, or ~91.3%, and that is even before you take into account age and medical profiles and the likelihood that the US suffers more fatalities than the other participating countries. What am I missing here?


You are missing nothing, except that trw is sloppy with both his underlying numbers, and with his calculations.

The worst-case do-nothing scenario for the USA was 2.2 million deaths. Since the USA belatedly did "something", the new worst-case scenario is 1.2 million deaths. But Dr. Fauci recently stated his best estimate is 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, although he also said he doesn't want to be held to that. So all talk of 500,000 to 3.3 million deaths is unsupported.

As for 0.4% to 10% range, this is supported but needs interpretation. Germany is testing aggressively, so the low 0.4% is based on a very large denominator. The 10% is no doubt Italy, which has a bunch of special circumstances. The USA is testing feebly, only symptomatic patients, which is about the same as not testing, so the 1.4-1.6% (with std deviation, across states, almost as large) is hospitalizations and quarantines. It will certainly jump if hospitals become overwhelmed, which could happen in one to two weeks, but it won't go to 10%.

trw's stated 3.6% to 90% is simply (0.4% to 10%) times 9, which is not how it's done.



Worse case was 2.2 million deaths and that's when we thought the death percent was 2%, now it is generally accepted to be closer to 3%... but that doesn't account for NYC's unbelievably bad response where we will likely see 10%. So experts I have spoken with at the CDC have raised the max to 3.3 million deaths. On the low end, it's still around 500k. Again, we don't know. You're right that there is good reason to believe in Germany's .4% for a lot of the country... but the US has big rural populations which are also doing NOTHING to prepare themselves and also have very limited healthcare, ICU beds and medical equipment. Again, we don't know. To call the analysis sloppiness is both bullshit and the same rudeness I was accused of early in this post. I really wish people would stop stating stupid crappity smacking shit like this. I actually have family members working the front medical lines that are in the most at risk group. It is very likely that nearly everyone is going to lose someone they love dearly.  Cry And yet we still prance around the internet like the dumbest crap out of our mouths is worth saying to people.

But of course this isn't a thread on coronavirus, it's about how to fix the mess FIDE created. I read a pretty interesting solution by GM PHN this morning. He proposes to finish the tournament as is and have the winner of this tournament play the winner of a second candidates tournament with the original 8 players (if it isn't the same person). People are coming up with a ton of interesting and fair ways to address the problem. The only real issue here is the cost of a second tournament. Still I imagine the easiest thing is to do at Toppy and Kramnik and just seed Radjabov into 2022.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
an ordinary chessplayer
God Member
*****
Offline


I used to be not bad.

Posts: 1667
Location: Columbus, OH (USA)
Joined: 01/02/15
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #21 - 03/30/20 at 01:11:15
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 03/29/20 at 18:58:29:
trw wrote on 03/29/20 at 16:32:25:
The issue is that .4% or 10% is a huge differing variable. Right now, 500,000 to 3.3 million are likely to die in the US alone depending on how well we deal with the lockdown, medical supplies and the overwhelmed healthcare system... Given how poorly NYC has responded... I think the US is closely to 3 million than 500k... So we just don't have the data right now... but that means the probability of one of the 9 people dying is anywhere from 3.6% to 90% which is just an insane range. We don't know.

Okay, now I'm confused again. The US has a population of about 330 million people. Assuming that 3.3 million (1%) of them die in a given time frame then the odds of all nine surviving is 0.99^9, or ~91.3%, and that is even before you take into account age and medical profiles and the likelihood that the US suffers more fatalities than the other participating countries. What am I missing here?


You are missing nothing, except that trw is sloppy with both his underlying numbers, and with his calculations.

The worst-case do-nothing scenario for the USA was 2.2 million deaths. Since the USA belatedly did "something", the new worst-case scenario is 1.2 million deaths. But Dr. Fauci recently stated his best estimate is 100,000 to 200,000 deaths, although he also said he doesn't want to be held to that. So all talk of 500,000 to 3.3 million deaths is unsupported.

As for 0.4% to 10% range, this is supported but needs interpretation. Germany is testing aggressively, so the low 0.4% is based on a very large denominator. The 10% is no doubt Italy, which has a bunch of special circumstances. The USA is testing feebly, only symptomatic patients, which is about the same as not testing, so the 1.4-1.6% (with std deviation, across states, almost as large) is hospitalizations and quarantines. It will certainly jump if hospitals become overwhelmed, which could happen in one to two weeks, but it won't go to 10%.

trw's stated 3.6% to 90% is simply (0.4% to 10%) times 9, which is not how it's done.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #20 - 03/29/20 at 20:24:40
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 03/29/20 at 18:58:29:
The issue is that .4% or 10% is a huge differing variable. Right now, 500,000 to 3.3 million are likely to die in the US alone depending on how well we deal with the lockdown, medical supplies and the overwhelmed healthcare system... Given how poorly NYC has responded... I think the US is closely to 3 million than 500k... So we just don't have the data right now... but that means the probability of one of the 9 people dying is anywhere from 3.6% to 90% which is just an insane range. We don't know.

Okay, now I'm confused again. The US has a population of about 330 million people. Assuming that 3.3 million (1%) of them die in a given time frame then the odds of all nine surviving is 0.99^9, or ~91.3%. This is even before you take into account age and medical profiles and differences in fatality rates between countries, which would presumably lower the likelihood of a death considerably further. What am I missing here?
« Last Edit: 03/29/20 at 21:49:47 by Jack Hughes »  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #19 - 03/29/20 at 18:58:29
Post Tools
trw wrote on 03/29/20 at 16:32:25:
The issue is that .4% or 10% is a huge differing variable. Right now, 500,000 to 3.3 million are likely to die in the US alone depending on how well we deal with the lockdown, medical supplies and the overwhelmed healthcare system... Given how poorly NYC has responded... I think the US is closely to 3 million than 500k... So we just don't have the data right now... but that means the probability of one of the 9 people dying is anywhere from 3.6% to 90% which is just an insane range. We don't know.

Okay, now I'm confused again. The US has a population of about 330 million people. Assuming that 3.3 million (1%) of them die in a given time frame then the odds of all nine surviving is 0.99^9, or ~91.3%, and that is even before you take into account age and medical profiles and the likelihood that the US suffers more fatalities than the other participating countries. What am I missing here?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1413
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #18 - 03/29/20 at 16:32:25
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 03/29/20 at 03:08:49:
Fair enough. Personally I would argue that describing the survival of all nine as "very very unlikely" implies a (substantially) higher than fifty percent chance of at least one death, but if you disagree I don't want to quibble over it. As regards estimating the actual probability I'll leave that to people more qualified than myself, to which end I'm content to rely on Thomas McAndrew's weekly surveys. From a certain point of view any scenario in which a moderately normal resumption of the candidates tournament later in the year, regardless of how it deals with the Radjabov situation, would be a very encouraging sign.



The issue is that .4% or 10% is a huge differing variable. Right now, 500,000 to 3.3 million are likely to die in the US alone depending on how well we deal with the lockdown, medical supplies and the overwhelmed healthcare system... Given how poorly NYC has responded... I think the US is closely to 3 million than 500k... So we just don't have the data right now... but that means the probability of one of the 9 people dying is anywhere from 3.6% to 90% which is just an insane range. We don't know.

Keano wrote on 03/29/20 at 15:47:49:
I would scrap the current tournament and relegate it to a bad decision and bad memory.

Start again with Radjabov.



Yeah another great option, probably the best one. Another option needed in the poll.

dfan wrote on 03/28/20 at 22:28:49:
I disagree.

And if you disagreed with him, you could just say so, rather than demanding that he remove the poll.


I am realizing the disconnect here isn't that the poll was badly done and doesn't include the correct options (see Keano just provided another great option). The disconnect is how best to compensate Radjabov. Yet many haven't reached this conclusion yet and they still exist in the nexus devoid of morals where it is actually a question for them personally on if Radjabov should be made whole.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Keano
God Member
*****
Offline


Money doesn't talk, it
swears.

Posts: 2915
Location: Toulouse
Joined: 05/25/05
Gender: Male
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #17 - 03/29/20 at 15:47:49
Post Tools
I would scrap the current tournament and relegate it to a bad decision and bad memory.

Start again with Radjabov.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Confused_by_Theory
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 648
Location: Europe
Joined: 05/13/15
Gender: Male
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #16 - 03/29/20 at 04:40:16
Post Tools
Hi.

Of the poll options maybe I should say that option D (don't do candidates and have wch tournament directly) would not exactly be relevant with any other world champion. Carlsen however dropped out of the 2009-2011 cycle (ended 2012 btw Cheesy) and gave up his candidates 2011 spot (highest rated) for various stated reasons.

What he did in direct connection to this was to raise the idea of having a 8 or 10-player tournament with the world's best players for the title. This didn't happen. Carlsen was back in for the 2011-2013 cycle regardless. Fide had changed the rules by scrapping the cup form candidates tournament and gave candidates rating spots after average rating over time instead of more time specific readings. Carlsen obviously won the candidates and became world champion. That was some time ago so it is not clear he is for the idea of a tournament anymore. Perhaps.

Have a nice day.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jack Hughes
Junior Member
**
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 72
Joined: 07/22/19
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #15 - 03/29/20 at 03:08:49
Post Tools
trw wrote on 03/28/20 at 21:34:54:
50% chance? No. And I would love for it to be a 0% chance to be clear, but it is a non zero number. Data is not good and estimates vary wildly. Original thesis put the death percent at 2-3%... The US was at 1.4% and is now at 1.6%. China doesn't release real data. Germany is at .4% Italy is at 9%... Unfortunately, NYC is set to make a record 10% or higher. We do know that FIDE increased their chances dramatically by exposing them to this debacle, travel, opening ceremony, more border and public spaces etc etc etc. They're young and healthy... but we don't know what is causing some cases to be mild vs gnarly. 17 year olds healthier than them have died brutally and painfully with no connected comorbidity. Sure, they're not in the target danger demographic of elderly, infirm or infants... but right now we don't know enough. Still, 8 people with a long enough time frame does not spell well for all 8 surviving. I would doubt we get through this crisis without each of us losing someone we love sadly.  Cry

Fair enough. Personally I would argue that describing the survival of all nine as "very very unlikely" implies a (substantially) higher than fifty percent chance of at least one death, but if you disagree I don't want to quibble over it. As regards estimating the actual probability I'll leave that to people more qualified than myself, to which end I'm content to rely on Thomas McAndrew's weekly surveys. From a certain point of view any scenario in which a moderately normal resumption of the candidates tournament later in the year, regardless of how it deals with the Radjabov situation, would be a very encouraging sign.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
dfan
God Member
*****
Offline


"When you see a bad move,
look for a better one"

Posts: 766
Location: Boston
Joined: 10/04/05
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #14 - 03/28/20 at 22:28:49
Post Tools
trw wrote on 03/28/20 at 21:34:54:
As for CBT, it's pretty clear I haven't done anything wrong here at all. He proposed 4 options that make no sense whatsoever.

I disagree.

And if you disagreed with him, you could just say so, rather than demanding that he remove the poll.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
trw
God Member
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 1413
Joined: 05/06/08
Gender: Male
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #13 - 03/28/20 at 21:34:54
Post Tools
Jack Hughes wrote on 03/28/20 at 09:32:01:
trw wrote on 03/27/20 at 23:34:06:
Also we are assuming that all 9 people survive which is very very unlikely.

This part confuses me. Do you think that there is an above fifty percent chance that one of the players will die from Coronavirus? Given the age profiles of the players and the well documented effect of age on mortality rates this seems like a very strangle prediction to me.


50% chance? No. And I would love for it to be a 0% chance to be clear, but it is a non zero number. Data is not good and estimates vary wildly. Original thesis put the death percent at 2-3%... The US was at 1.4% and is now at 1.6%. China doesn't release real data. Germany is at .4% Italy is at 9%... Unfortunately, NYC is set to make a record 10% or higher. We do know that FIDE increased their chances dramatically by exposing them to this debacle, travel, opening ceremony, more border and public spaces etc etc etc. They're young and healthy... but we don't know what is causing some cases to be mild vs gnarly. 17 year olds healthier than them have died brutally and painfully with no connected comorbidity. Sure, they're not in the target danger demographic of elderly, infirm or infants... but right now we don't know enough. Still, 8 people with a long enough time frame does not spell well for all 8 surviving. I would doubt we get through this crisis without each of us losing someone we love sadly.  Cry

Bibs wrote on 03/28/20 at 12:36:00:
@trw
Let's keep it civil shall we?


I am afraid I disagree with you that I haven't been "civil." The only reason people aren't mercilessly attacking ?? to the e5 move is because Caruana played it. If it had been someone else outside the top 10 or heaven forbid a 2000 player, people would laugh at it forever. It will not be played in correspondence since I can assure you since white wins by force.

As for CBT, it's pretty clear I haven't done anything wrong here at all. He proposed 4 options that make no sense whatsoever.

TopNotch wrote on 03/28/20 at 17:44:42:
I agree with you for the most part, and I would add that as a chess fan I was thrilled with the 7 games we got, but as an impartial observer the Candidates going forward was a bit reckless to begin with. This whole argument about ultimatums feels like nonsense to me, Radja asked or as fide indicates demanded the tournament be postponed in view of a spreading pandemic. Fide refused, Radja dropped out and was replaced. Later the tournament had to be cancelled just like all other major sporting events due either directly or tangentially to the effects Covid-19 globally.

Clearly this a big mess, I suspect the players agreed to play reluctantly for various reasons, financial being a big one stigma being another. It is possible that legally FIDE may not owe Radjabov anything, the LAW is funny like that, but morally they surely need to do something to make Radjabov whole. The assertion that Radja may not be in shape 2 years from now, is simply not a strong enough counter argument, besides he is a proud guy and i'm pretty certain he wouldn't play if he felt he wasn't in good enough shape. The other argument that Radja would be robbing someone else of a spot may have some merit, but there is also merit that he is being robbed now.

The stance that Fide could not have foreseen what happened and took every precaution is weak, since every precaution would have included postponing the tournament until it could be better determined the impact of Covid-19 globally especially in the absence of a vaccine.   

Now here we are, and this is what we are left with. Clearly Radja has been aggrieved, Fide has made a misjudgement and needs to attempt to find an amicable remedy for all concerned. However the current players in the Candidates cannot be disadvantaged any further and I say again the best, though not perfect solution is to resume the candidates at a later date and to try to make amends with Radjabov by seeding him directly into the next Candidates. This is the humane thing to do under the circumstances.

Lastly I hope everyone remains well, calm and rational and that a cure is soon found for this scary disease. There is a 2011 film entitled Contagion that eerily mirrors what we are going through now right down to the source of infection and I would highly recommend viewing it while most of us are 'sequestered' in our homes, as it may offer some hitherto new perspective and gravity to what we could be facing going forward.



I agree with you mostly except that Radjabov didn't drop out he was forced out with an ultimatum. Kramnik also agrees with your solution. I hope FIDE is smart enough to repair this situation without forcing the courts to do it for them. It was totally reckless on their part to push the candidates forward and without consulting with any competent medical professional anywhere at any point that would have advised them against this decision. It makes one wonder why FIDE doesn't have a chief medical officer...

At any rate, now the question is what to do and how to course correct. The prevailing opinion from top players seems to vary on how to compensate Radjabov but thus far no one seems to question that he needs to be made whole.

Vladimir Kramnik: https://chess24.com/en/read/news/carlsen-dvorkovich-kramnik-on-ending-the-candid...
Sergey Karjakin: https://twitter.com/SergeyKaryakin/status/1243483082822496257
Gata Kamsky: https://www.facebook.com/gata.kamsky/posts/3582661241804381
Azeri National team: https://www.chess.com/news/view/azerbaijan-team-open-letter-fide-radjabov

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
RoleyPoley
YaBB Moderator
*****
Offline


I Love ChessPublishing!

Posts: 740
Location: London
Joined: 12/29/13
Gender: Male
Re: Candidates 2020 how to proceed
Reply #12 - 03/28/20 at 20:30:11
Post Tools
Is there some other way of 'compensating' Radja - i.e seeding into another competition for example, not just a future candidates event?
  

"As Mikhail Tal would say ' Let's have a bit of hooliganism! '"

Victor Bologan.
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: 1 [2] 3 
Topic Tools
Bookmarks: del.icio.us Digg Facebook Google Google+ Linked in reddit StumbleUpon Twitter Yahoo