Better yet—explain it to those of us who don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of chess.
My extremely limited understanding suggests that this is an unpopular opening (and that barring a well-analyzed play-history that suggested it was favorable) Kasparov is unlikely to open with P-KN4 against an equal opponent, so RYK opening with that suggests we got lucky and drew one of the 1/1000 “let’s try something fun” games.
I rank it as very possible that my extremely limited understanding is wildly incorrect, but with cryptic comments like these, I stand to benefit little from this insight, if correct.
If EY says that starting the game with P-KN4 is a move which the real-life Kasparov would never make, this means that (either he’s lying or) he gives zero probability to Kasparov making that move, and so by construction his bot will never make that move either.
Together with the construction of RYK, the sentence I quoted amounts to “Kasparov will never open with that move, but I don’t believe he never will”.
Given the EY here in both scenarios is the active agent (EY, in flesh, and the RYK box, consisting of a synthetic EY guessing at what K does, and a system choosingly randomly based on EY-over-K predictions what the box does next)...
Yes. “never” is a strong word here. Assume when he says “never” he means, “EY thinks it is really unlikely for K to do”.
In other words, when EY sees EY-playing-K-but-Selecting-Moves-Randomly-in-proportion-with-predictions-of-K, and observes RYK has played an unexpected/unlikely move, EY concludes that RYK has probably picked a move that is evaluated to be less fit than some other move. RYK is a worse player than EY because RYK is not picking its best options. RYK is the gambler that sometimes takes the sucker bet.
Yes. “never” is a strong word here. Assume when he says “never” he means, “EY thinks it is really unlikely for K to do”.
Yes, the sane meaning for “never” is ‘negligibly often’… but then again the sane meaning for “sometimes” is ‘non-negligibly often’.
In other words, when EY sees EY-playing-K-but-Selecting-Moves-Randomly-in-proportion-with-predictions-of-K, and observes RYK has played an unexpected/unlikely move, EY concludes that RYK has probably picked a move that is evaluated to be less fit than some other move. RYK is a worse player than EY because RYK is not picking its best options. RYK is the gambler that sometimes takes the sucker bet.
I do get his point, but I think that sentence in particular is paradoxical. Had he said “rarely” and “rarely” it’d be OK, but “sometimes” and “never”...
Better yet—explain it to those of us who don’t have an encyclopedic knowledge of chess.
My extremely limited understanding suggests that this is an unpopular opening (and that barring a well-analyzed play-history that suggested it was favorable) Kasparov is unlikely to open with P-KN4 against an equal opponent, so RYK opening with that suggests we got lucky and drew one of the 1/1000 “let’s try something fun” games.
I rank it as very possible that my extremely limited understanding is wildly incorrect, but with cryptic comments like these, I stand to benefit little from this insight, if correct.
If EY says that starting the game with P-KN4 is a move which the real-life Kasparov would never make, this means that (either he’s lying or) he gives zero probability to Kasparov making that move, and so by construction his bot will never make that move either.
Together with the construction of RYK, the sentence I quoted amounts to “Kasparov will never open with that move, but I don’t believe he never will”.
OK, I’ll play.
Given the EY here in both scenarios is the active agent (EY, in flesh, and the RYK box, consisting of a synthetic EY guessing at what K does, and a system choosingly randomly based on EY-over-K predictions what the box does next)...
Yes. “never” is a strong word here. Assume when he says “never” he means, “EY thinks it is really unlikely for K to do”.
In other words, when EY sees EY-playing-K-but-Selecting-Moves-Randomly-in-proportion-with-predictions-of-K, and observes RYK has played an unexpected/unlikely move, EY concludes that RYK has probably picked a move that is evaluated to be less fit than some other move. RYK is a worse player than EY because RYK is not picking its best options. RYK is the gambler that sometimes takes the sucker bet.
Yes, the sane meaning for “never” is ‘negligibly often’… but then again the sane meaning for “sometimes” is ‘non-negligibly often’.
I do get his point, but I think that sentence in particular is paradoxical. Had he said “rarely” and “rarely” it’d be OK, but “sometimes” and “never”...