On January 16 2013 13:29 Zergneedsfood wrote: [quote]
That's like Season 19.....chill out lol
That means he could be like A- by now.
Do not be dictated by your fears!
On January 17 2013 00:11 mca64[KDV] wrote:
On January 13 2013 23:20 Zergneedsfood wrote: [quote]
You are stupid noob, he got it yesterday and then posted a blog about it. Up until then he had not gotten blue rank. Deal with it.
Stupid noob.
deal your brain lag
Learn to type a response before you post please. Editing your insults in, especially one that's grammatically incorrect, doesn't help when the person you're insulting happens to see.
Honestly, if you're just panzy and scared to admit that Fold is much better than you and you'd get butt raped by him, just say that instead of just complaining that he is blue rank before he was B- rank. Surely your fears that he was B was because he just stomped your face and you had no other way of justifying it (rather than the obvious conclusion).
man do you have any problems with logic? Do you think fold now is b- and 1 month ago he was C rank? comon
So basically he raped you and you're butthurt and you have no other explanation. The rules explicitly state IF YOU HAD GOTTEN B- rank, which means if you haven't acquired blue rank, under these parameters you're not B rank.
Stop trying to argue when you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
are you spam bot here? 4.7k post and know nothnig about sc;bw. ?Tour is for yellow rank, fold's skills was higher than yellow rank when he signed and you should know it
I was bored yesterday and so I went browsing the iccup ladder and I found this guy:
He has reached B- with a 95% with only playing D players that have a winration that is below 33%. I'm just saying that the rank you have doesn't actually mean as much as we try to pretend it does.
People who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule. Generally, C ranks are lower-intermediate skills on the iccup server. Now, I know this argument will always arise when you have a tournament where the premise is "may the best player win", while there is a simultaneous skill cap. However, there's an argument to be made here that if you used a manipulation of data to gain unfair advantage, you would be in breach of good sportsmanship. For example, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when the Chinese National Gymnastics Team sent out their competitors, there was controversy over their age and eligibility, the reason being that they may not have met the requirements set out by the rules.
To simply dismiss the arguments and go "Eh, it doesn't really matter" really shows a lack of objectivity and I don't believe to be productive to a conversation. As long as we're not engaging in death threats, "your mom" jokes, nuclear warfare, then I see no problem in having a legitimate disagreement with someone, but it's very easy to dismiss the entirety of the discussion as "childish" (which is kind of intellectually lazy) and have many other people jump on that bandwagon.
I really don't know if you were trying to argue with me or MCA. I generally agree with what you are saying, but I was just pointing out that what MCA specifically said is not always true and I also disagree with him saying that it's impossible to get from C to B in a month.
Theoretically someone who has never played a single game of brood war could hop onto it and beat Flash at his peak. It's EXTERMELY unlikely, but theoretically possible. It is the same for improvement in practice almost nobody would hit A+ after a month of playing, but it's possible in theory.
It's the same for Fold. It's unlikely for a player to show such massive improvement in a month, but everything points towards it happening (and then again C to B- is not *that* unlikely) + Show Spoiler +
I hope I didn't overcomplicate this for no reason!
First paragraph: Okay, I guess we agree on that.
Second paragraph: I'm going to try my very utmost hardest to not engage in a vitriolic tirade insulting you personally, but explain why you are completely wrong in a very poised and eloquent manner.
Good sir, I do hereby submit to you that I wish to express my disconcordance with your attestation to the relativistic constitution of the merits of aptitude in the esteemed virtuosity of one Lee Young Ho as juxtaposed aside a dilettante, nay, a novitiate of sorts in the school of StellaMestieret: guerra delle nidiate.
A hypothesis would better explain your assertion, as a hypothesis is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. I understand that you are utilizing the term 'theory' as a conjectural device, and perhaps unintentionally, deceptively so. However, a theory must be supported by observable patterns of behavior that lead to the formation of a guiding set of principles.
When we talk about oddsmaking theory, we generally are speaking about unknown variables that affect the outcome of a particular contingency. For example, a salesman sets a goal for a certain number of phone calls per hour based on data that has been collected to maximize his sales proficiency. He knows that the phone numbers on his list are considered more likely to pick up their phones and speak with him. He knows his sales pitch, and has it down to a cue. He has a solid, attractive product that he knows he can convince most people that they will need. However, what he does not know, is how the potential customers will react to him. It is technically possible that none of the people he calls will make a purchase. However, it is highly unlikely that this will be the case, because the company he works for has calculated that there will be an overall "average" of positive responses per phone call, thus, to make sales, the volume of phone-calls should simply be increased until the sales quota is met.
Even in this scenario where there are unknown variables, there is certainty in knowing that, eventually, a sale will be made. Now, you may think that I've just defeated the point I was making. If an unlimited absolute newcomers were to play "Flash at the peak of his career", there is an uncertainty variable that dictates that eventually, Flash would lose. In reality, however, all of the variables are controlled. It is Flash's fully-functional mind versus the fully-functional mind of Player X, but in a quite narrow context, relatively speaking. StarCraft, the game, even with it's depth, has limitations. So both players are playing within the limitations of the game, to which Player X's understanding can be expressed as 0. Player X therefore has to rely solely on his or her adaptability and dexterity, which would be a minute fraction of a single digit. If Player X played from the moment of his or her birth, all the way to their death, maintaining a constant mathematical understanding of 0 over the entirety of their lifetime, they would probably win approximately zero of their games, although, they may win a fraction of one game, but since games are expressed as whole numbers, if they won 0.04 games, the number would be rounded to 0.
As we can see from this chart, the number of games does not change the outcome. Now, if we used a more realistic model where, over time, the noob begins to gain game knowledge, the odds would still be astronomically low. How low? Like, probably a google-plex.
The point is: it would never ever ever ever ever ever ever get back together happen.
Third paragraph: The odds of a newcomer beating Flash have really nothing to do with the rate by which a player can realistically improve over time. Using a nonsensical scenario to make a point that "anything is possible" does not conform to a human perception of reality because we are limited in space, time, matter, and energy. For example, if there was a huge car accident, and a woman survived somehow, someone might go "It was a miracle from God!", and a skeptic might go "You know, it's possible to not die from a car accident, and in all likelihood, I don't know if even God even exists." then some other guy goes "Hey, anything is possible! Like, a flea could destroy an Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier in a head-to-head battle. I know the odds of this happening are very low, but it could happen, and therefore, God could exist, and this could've been a miracle." I'm not saying God does nor doesn't exist, I'm simply saying applying this kind of absurd "ridiculous scenario" logic to a perfectly logical happening just doesn't make any fucking sense.
I think we both agree on my second paragraph as well, but you of course being you had to be overly cute and ostentatious in your use of vocabulary just to win an argument by seeming intelligent.
We both understand that the probability of Flash losing to a complete scrub is probably several million times smaller than winning the lottery, but it in no way means that it doesn't exist so you shouldn't have focused your reply solely on that.
The infinite flash vs scrub theorem states that in an infinite amount of sets between Flash and a random scrub (who's skill factor according to you is 0) the scrub would win an infinite amount of games (although this infinity would be majorly dwarfed by the infinity that is the amount of Flash's wins).
On January 16 2013 13:29 Zergneedsfood wrote: [quote]
That's like Season 19.....chill out lol
That means he could be like A- by now.
Do not be dictated by your fears!
On January 17 2013 00:11 mca64[KDV] wrote:
On January 13 2013 23:20 Zergneedsfood wrote: [quote]
You are stupid noob, he got it yesterday and then posted a blog about it. Up until then he had not gotten blue rank. Deal with it.
Stupid noob.
deal your brain lag
Learn to type a response before you post please. Editing your insults in, especially one that's grammatically incorrect, doesn't help when the person you're insulting happens to see.
Honestly, if you're just panzy and scared to admit that Fold is much better than you and you'd get butt raped by him, just say that instead of just complaining that he is blue rank before he was B- rank. Surely your fears that he was B was because he just stomped your face and you had no other way of justifying it (rather than the obvious conclusion).
man do you have any problems with logic? Do you think fold now is b- and 1 month ago he was C rank? comon
So basically he raped you and you're butthurt and you have no other explanation. The rules explicitly state IF YOU HAD GOTTEN B- rank, which means if you haven't acquired blue rank, under these parameters you're not B rank.
Stop trying to argue when you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
are you spam bot here? 4.7k post and know nothnig about sc;bw. ?Tour is for yellow rank, fold's skills was higher than yellow rank when he signed and you should know it
I was bored yesterday and so I went browsing the iccup ladder and I found this guy:
He has reached B- with a 95% with only playing D players that have a winration that is below 33%. I'm just saying that the rank you have doesn't actually mean as much as we try to pretend it does.
People who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule. Generally, C ranks are lower-intermediate skills on the iccup server. Now, I know this argument will always arise when you have a tournament where the premise is "may the best player win", while there is a simultaneous skill cap. However, there's an argument to be made here that if you used a manipulation of data to gain unfair advantage, you would be in breach of good sportsmanship. For example, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when the Chinese National Gymnastics Team sent out their competitors, there was controversy over their age and eligibility, the reason being that they may not have met the requirements set out by the rules.
To simply dismiss the arguments and go "Eh, it doesn't really matter" really shows a lack of objectivity and I don't believe to be productive to a conversation. As long as we're not engaging in death threats, "your mom" jokes, nuclear warfare, then I see no problem in having a legitimate disagreement with someone, but it's very easy to dismiss the entirety of the discussion as "childish" (which is kind of intellectually lazy) and have many other people jump on that bandwagon.
I really don't know if you were trying to argue with me or MCA. I generally agree with what you are saying, but I was just pointing out that what MCA specifically said is not always true and I also disagree with him saying that it's impossible to get from C to B in a month.
Theoretically someone who has never played a single game of brood war could hop onto it and beat Flash at his peak. It's EXTERMELY unlikely, but theoretically possible. It is the same for improvement in practice almost nobody would hit A+ after a month of playing, but it's possible in theory.
It's the same for Fold. It's unlikely for a player to show such massive improvement in a month, but everything points towards it happening (and then again C to B- is not *that* unlikely) + Show Spoiler +
I hope I didn't overcomplicate this for no reason!
First paragraph: Okay, I guess we agree on that.
Second paragraph: I'm going to try my very utmost hardest to not engage in a vitriolic tirade insulting you personally, but explain why you are completely wrong in a very poised and eloquent manner.
Good sir, I do hereby submit to you that I wish to express my disconcordance with your attestation to the relativistic constitution of the merits of aptitude in the esteemed virtuosity of one Lee Young Ho as juxtaposed aside a dilettante, nay, a novitiate of sorts in the school of StellaMestieret: guerra delle nidiate.
A hypothesis would better explain your assertion, as a hypothesis is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. I understand that you are utilizing the term 'theory' as a conjectural device, and perhaps unintentionally, deceptively so. However, a theory must be supported by observable patterns of behavior that lead to the formation of a guiding set of principles.
When we talk about oddsmaking theory, we generally are speaking about unknown variables that affect the outcome of a particular contingency. For example, a salesman sets a goal for a certain number of phone calls per hour based on data that has been collected to maximize his sales proficiency. He knows that the phone numbers on his list are considered more likely to pick up their phones and speak with him. He knows his sales pitch, and has it down to a cue. He has a solid, attractive product that he knows he can convince most people that they will need. However, what he does not know, is how the potential customers will react to him. It is technically possible that none of the people he calls will make a purchase. However, it is highly unlikely that this will be the case, because the company he works for has calculated that there will be an overall "average" of positive responses per phone call, thus, to make sales, the volume of phone-calls should simply be increased until the sales quota is met.
Even in this scenario where there are unknown variables, there is certainty in knowing that, eventually, a sale will be made. Now, you may think that I've just defeated the point I was making. If an unlimited absolute newcomers were to play "Flash at the peak of his career", there is an uncertainty variable that dictates that eventually, Flash would lose. In reality, however, all of the variables are controlled. It is Flash's fully-functional mind versus the fully-functional mind of Player X, but in a quite narrow context, relatively speaking. StarCraft, the game, even with it's depth, has limitations. So both players are playing within the limitations of the game, to which Player X's understanding can be expressed as 0. Player X therefore has to rely solely on his or her adaptability and dexterity, which would be a minute fraction of a single digit. If Player X played from the moment of his or her birth, all the way to their death, maintaining a constant mathematical understanding of 0 over the entirety of their lifetime, they would probably win approximately zero of their games, although, they may win a fraction of one game, but since games are expressed as whole numbers, if they won 0.04 games, the number would be rounded to 0.
As we can see from this chart, the number of games does not change the outcome. Now, if we used a more realistic model where, over time, the noob begins to gain game knowledge, the odds would still be astronomically low. How low? Like, probably a google-plex.
The point is: it would never ever ever ever ever ever ever get back together happen.
Third paragraph: The odds of a newcomer beating Flash have really nothing to do with the rate by which a player can realistically improve over time. Using a nonsensical scenario to make a point that "anything is possible" does not conform to a human perception of reality because we are limited in space, time, matter, and energy. For example, if there was a huge car accident, and a woman survived somehow, someone might go "It was a miracle from God!", and a skeptic might go "You know, it's possible to not die from a car accident, and in all likelihood, I don't know if even God even exists." then some other guy goes "Hey, anything is possible! Like, a flea could destroy an Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier in a head-to-head battle. I know the odds of this happening are very low, but it could happen, and therefore, God could exist, and this could've been a miracle." I'm not saying God does nor doesn't exist, I'm simply saying applying this kind of absurd "ridiculous scenario" logic to a perfectly logical happening just doesn't make any fucking sense.
my brain, she is broken... use easy vocab kk thnx
@ Reclusive , thnx for finishing this novel I have now finally completed reading one.
On January 16 2013 16:58 SnowFantasy wrote: [quote]
That means he could be like A- by now.
Do not be dictated by your fears!
On January 17 2013 00:11 mca64[KDV] wrote: [quote] deal your brain lag
Learn to type a response before you post please. Editing your insults in, especially one that's grammatically incorrect, doesn't help when the person you're insulting happens to see.
Honestly, if you're just panzy and scared to admit that Fold is much better than you and you'd get butt raped by him, just say that instead of just complaining that he is blue rank before he was B- rank. Surely your fears that he was B was because he just stomped your face and you had no other way of justifying it (rather than the obvious conclusion).
man do you have any problems with logic? Do you think fold now is b- and 1 month ago he was C rank? comon
So basically he raped you and you're butthurt and you have no other explanation. The rules explicitly state IF YOU HAD GOTTEN B- rank, which means if you haven't acquired blue rank, under these parameters you're not B rank.
Stop trying to argue when you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
are you spam bot here? 4.7k post and know nothnig about sc;bw. ?Tour is for yellow rank, fold's skills was higher than yellow rank when he signed and you should know it
I was bored yesterday and so I went browsing the iccup ladder and I found this guy:
He has reached B- with a 95% with only playing D players that have a winration that is below 33%. I'm just saying that the rank you have doesn't actually mean as much as we try to pretend it does.
People who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule. Generally, C ranks are lower-intermediate skills on the iccup server. Now, I know this argument will always arise when you have a tournament where the premise is "may the best player win", while there is a simultaneous skill cap. However, there's an argument to be made here that if you used a manipulation of data to gain unfair advantage, you would be in breach of good sportsmanship. For example, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when the Chinese National Gymnastics Team sent out their competitors, there was controversy over their age and eligibility, the reason being that they may not have met the requirements set out by the rules.
To simply dismiss the arguments and go "Eh, it doesn't really matter" really shows a lack of objectivity and I don't believe to be productive to a conversation. As long as we're not engaging in death threats, "your mom" jokes, nuclear warfare, then I see no problem in having a legitimate disagreement with someone, but it's very easy to dismiss the entirety of the discussion as "childish" (which is kind of intellectually lazy) and have many other people jump on that bandwagon.
I really don't know if you were trying to argue with me or MCA. I generally agree with what you are saying, but I was just pointing out that what MCA specifically said is not always true and I also disagree with him saying that it's impossible to get from C to B in a month.
Theoretically someone who has never played a single game of brood war could hop onto it and beat Flash at his peak. It's EXTERMELY unlikely, but theoretically possible. It is the same for improvement in practice almost nobody would hit A+ after a month of playing, but it's possible in theory.
It's the same for Fold. It's unlikely for a player to show such massive improvement in a month, but everything points towards it happening (and then again C to B- is not *that* unlikely) + Show Spoiler +
I hope I didn't overcomplicate this for no reason!
First paragraph: Okay, I guess we agree on that.
Second paragraph: I'm going to try my very utmost hardest to not engage in a vitriolic tirade insulting you personally, but explain why you are completely wrong in a very poised and eloquent manner.
Good sir, I do hereby submit to you that I wish to express my disconcordance with your attestation to the relativistic constitution of the merits of aptitude in the esteemed virtuosity of one Lee Young Ho as juxtaposed aside a dilettante, nay, a novitiate of sorts in the school of StellaMestieret: guerra delle nidiate.
A hypothesis would better explain your assertion, as a hypothesis is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. I understand that you are utilizing the term 'theory' as a conjectural device, and perhaps unintentionally, deceptively so. However, a theory must be supported by observable patterns of behavior that lead to the formation of a guiding set of principles.
When we talk about oddsmaking theory, we generally are speaking about unknown variables that affect the outcome of a particular contingency. For example, a salesman sets a goal for a certain number of phone calls per hour based on data that has been collected to maximize his sales proficiency. He knows that the phone numbers on his list are considered more likely to pick up their phones and speak with him. He knows his sales pitch, and has it down to a cue. He has a solid, attractive product that he knows he can convince most people that they will need. However, what he does not know, is how the potential customers will react to him. It is technically possible that none of the people he calls will make a purchase. However, it is highly unlikely that this will be the case, because the company he works for has calculated that there will be an overall "average" of positive responses per phone call, thus, to make sales, the volume of phone-calls should simply be increased until the sales quota is met.
Even in this scenario where there are unknown variables, there is certainty in knowing that, eventually, a sale will be made. Now, you may think that I've just defeated the point I was making. If an unlimited absolute newcomers were to play "Flash at the peak of his career", there is an uncertainty variable that dictates that eventually, Flash would lose. In reality, however, all of the variables are controlled. It is Flash's fully-functional mind versus the fully-functional mind of Player X, but in a quite narrow context, relatively speaking. StarCraft, the game, even with it's depth, has limitations. So both players are playing within the limitations of the game, to which Player X's understanding can be expressed as 0. Player X therefore has to rely solely on his or her adaptability and dexterity, which would be a minute fraction of a single digit. If Player X played from the moment of his or her birth, all the way to their death, maintaining a constant mathematical understanding of 0 over the entirety of their lifetime, they would probably win approximately zero of their games, although, they may win a fraction of one game, but since games are expressed as whole numbers, if they won 0.04 games, the number would be rounded to 0.
As we can see from this chart, the number of games does not change the outcome. Now, if we used a more realistic model where, over time, the noob begins to gain game knowledge, the odds would still be astronomically low. How low? Like, probably a google-plex.
The point is: it would never ever ever ever ever ever ever get back together happen.
Third paragraph: The odds of a newcomer beating Flash have really nothing to do with the rate by which a player can realistically improve over time. Using a nonsensical scenario to make a point that "anything is possible" does not conform to a human perception of reality because we are limited in space, time, matter, and energy. For example, if there was a huge car accident, and a woman survived somehow, someone might go "It was a miracle from God!", and a skeptic might go "You know, it's possible to not die from a car accident, and in all likelihood, I don't know if even God even exists." then some other guy goes "Hey, anything is possible! Like, a flea could destroy an Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier in a head-to-head battle. I know the odds of this happening are very low, but it could happen, and therefore, God could exist, and this could've been a miracle." I'm not saying God does nor doesn't exist, I'm simply saying applying this kind of absurd "ridiculous scenario" logic to a perfectly logical happening just doesn't make any fucking sense.
I think we both agree on my second paragraph as well, but you of course being you had to be overly cute and ostentatious in your use of vocabulary just to win an argument by seeming intelligent.
We both understand that the probability of Flash losing to a complete scrub is probably several million times smaller than winning the lottery, but it in no way means that it doesn't exist so you shouldn't have focused your reply solely on that.
The infinite flash vs scrub theorem states that in an infinite amount of sets between Flash and a random scrub (who's skill factor according to you is 0) the scrub would win an infinite amount of games (although this infinity would be majorly dwarfed by the infinity that is the amount of Flash's wins).
The Infinite Monkey Theorem actually comes from Aristotle, who asserted that if you threw down dust, there was a very slender chance that it could for into the letters of the Annals of Ennius. The theorem basically states that given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen, will happen.
What if something can't happen?
I'm not talking about 'skill' when comparing "Flash at the peak of his career" to the "Total scrub who has never touched StarCraft". I'm talking strictly about game-knowledge alone. If you have no knowledge, your game knowledge can be expressed as zero. In terms of skill, intelligence, adaptability, dexterity, the scrub's skill would be something very, very, very low.
Because we are working in a very limited window of StarCraft, where you start with 4 workers in one of 4 places, and with no knowledge of the game, there is no possibility of a build order being executed correctly, including a 4-pool. But let's say a 4-pool somehow happened. "Flash at the peak of his career" would simply be able to defend the attack.
Simply put, Flash would have to have to have some lapse in mechanics or judgment, but since you specifically dictated that it would be Flash at his very best, there would be no lapse in mechanics or judgment large enough to ever to produce a win, therefore, the scrub would simply would have to rely his game knowledge, which is non-existent. Furthermore, Flash would have to make an enormous number of mistakes at the very fundamental levels of the game for the scrub to be able to even have advantage to exploit, but even this were the case, the scrub has zero knowledge of how to exploit any openings present, so any exploitation would have to be pure luck - which might make you go "Aha! So there is a probability." but there really isn't considering that Flash would not make an enormous number of mistakes at the very fundamental levels of the game, whereas the scrub undoubtedly would.
To put this in StarCraft terms:
A marine has a range of 4 (5 maximum) A siege tank has a range of 7 without siege
If the marine and siege tank fight head-on, the siege tank will undoubtedly get the first hit. The marine may get one shot at the tank, but after the second shot, the marine dies. The marine will never win, no matter how many times this scenario is reproduced, because all of the variables that are important to the outcome of the fight are limited, and are not subject to change.
For the scrub to even theoretically have a chance, he would have to have incredible adaptability to be able to sit down in front of a game like StarCraft, understand basic concepts of the game, then process those basic concepts into more advanced concepts, then have the dexterity to execute those concepts into strategies, and then have intimate knowledge of the map, costs of units, economy management, multi-tasking, unit composition, unit positioning, unit speeds, building and upgrade speeds/costs, spell-casting abilities, physical timing, reaction timing, worker-to-army ratios, and many, many more amazingly difficult learning experiences all in his first sitting. The human mind does not have the computing power to do something like that. I'm talking about limited values on tangible things, and you're talking about unlimited values on abstract things.
Also, monkeys would not write the entire works of Shakespeare, because it is a well-known fact that monkeys hate Shakespeare.
On January 17 2013 00:12 Zergneedsfood wrote: [quote]
Do not be dictated by your fears!
[quote]
Learn to type a response before you post please. Editing your insults in, especially one that's grammatically incorrect, doesn't help when the person you're insulting happens to see.
Honestly, if you're just panzy and scared to admit that Fold is much better than you and you'd get butt raped by him, just say that instead of just complaining that he is blue rank before he was B- rank. Surely your fears that he was B was because he just stomped your face and you had no other way of justifying it (rather than the obvious conclusion).
man do you have any problems with logic? Do you think fold now is b- and 1 month ago he was C rank? comon
So basically he raped you and you're butthurt and you have no other explanation. The rules explicitly state IF YOU HAD GOTTEN B- rank, which means if you haven't acquired blue rank, under these parameters you're not B rank.
Stop trying to argue when you have no idea what the hell you're talking about.
are you spam bot here? 4.7k post and know nothnig about sc;bw. ?Tour is for yellow rank, fold's skills was higher than yellow rank when he signed and you should know it
I was bored yesterday and so I went browsing the iccup ladder and I found this guy:
He has reached B- with a 95% with only playing D players that have a winration that is below 33%. I'm just saying that the rank you have doesn't actually mean as much as we try to pretend it does.
People who abuse the system are the exception, not the rule. Generally, C ranks are lower-intermediate skills on the iccup server. Now, I know this argument will always arise when you have a tournament where the premise is "may the best player win", while there is a simultaneous skill cap. However, there's an argument to be made here that if you used a manipulation of data to gain unfair advantage, you would be in breach of good sportsmanship. For example, in the 2008 Beijing Olympics, when the Chinese National Gymnastics Team sent out their competitors, there was controversy over their age and eligibility, the reason being that they may not have met the requirements set out by the rules.
To simply dismiss the arguments and go "Eh, it doesn't really matter" really shows a lack of objectivity and I don't believe to be productive to a conversation. As long as we're not engaging in death threats, "your mom" jokes, nuclear warfare, then I see no problem in having a legitimate disagreement with someone, but it's very easy to dismiss the entirety of the discussion as "childish" (which is kind of intellectually lazy) and have many other people jump on that bandwagon.
I really don't know if you were trying to argue with me or MCA. I generally agree with what you are saying, but I was just pointing out that what MCA specifically said is not always true and I also disagree with him saying that it's impossible to get from C to B in a month.
Theoretically someone who has never played a single game of brood war could hop onto it and beat Flash at his peak. It's EXTERMELY unlikely, but theoretically possible. It is the same for improvement in practice almost nobody would hit A+ after a month of playing, but it's possible in theory.
It's the same for Fold. It's unlikely for a player to show such massive improvement in a month, but everything points towards it happening (and then again C to B- is not *that* unlikely) + Show Spoiler +
I hope I didn't overcomplicate this for no reason!
First paragraph: Okay, I guess we agree on that.
Second paragraph: I'm going to try my very utmost hardest to not engage in a vitriolic tirade insulting you personally, but explain why you are completely wrong in a very poised and eloquent manner.
Good sir, I do hereby submit to you that I wish to express my disconcordance with your attestation to the relativistic constitution of the merits of aptitude in the esteemed virtuosity of one Lee Young Ho as juxtaposed aside a dilettante, nay, a novitiate of sorts in the school of StellaMestieret: guerra delle nidiate.
A hypothesis would better explain your assertion, as a hypothesis is a proposition made as a basis for reasoning, without any assumption of its truth. I understand that you are utilizing the term 'theory' as a conjectural device, and perhaps unintentionally, deceptively so. However, a theory must be supported by observable patterns of behavior that lead to the formation of a guiding set of principles.
When we talk about oddsmaking theory, we generally are speaking about unknown variables that affect the outcome of a particular contingency. For example, a salesman sets a goal for a certain number of phone calls per hour based on data that has been collected to maximize his sales proficiency. He knows that the phone numbers on his list are considered more likely to pick up their phones and speak with him. He knows his sales pitch, and has it down to a cue. He has a solid, attractive product that he knows he can convince most people that they will need. However, what he does not know, is how the potential customers will react to him. It is technically possible that none of the people he calls will make a purchase. However, it is highly unlikely that this will be the case, because the company he works for has calculated that there will be an overall "average" of positive responses per phone call, thus, to make sales, the volume of phone-calls should simply be increased until the sales quota is met.
Even in this scenario where there are unknown variables, there is certainty in knowing that, eventually, a sale will be made. Now, you may think that I've just defeated the point I was making. If an unlimited absolute newcomers were to play "Flash at the peak of his career", there is an uncertainty variable that dictates that eventually, Flash would lose. In reality, however, all of the variables are controlled. It is Flash's fully-functional mind versus the fully-functional mind of Player X, but in a quite narrow context, relatively speaking. StarCraft, the game, even with it's depth, has limitations. So both players are playing within the limitations of the game, to which Player X's understanding can be expressed as 0. Player X therefore has to rely solely on his or her adaptability and dexterity, which would be a minute fraction of a single digit. If Player X played from the moment of his or her birth, all the way to their death, maintaining a constant mathematical understanding of 0 over the entirety of their lifetime, they would probably win approximately zero of their games, although, they may win a fraction of one game, but since games are expressed as whole numbers, if they won 0.04 games, the number would be rounded to 0.
As we can see from this chart, the number of games does not change the outcome. Now, if we used a more realistic model where, over time, the noob begins to gain game knowledge, the odds would still be astronomically low. How low? Like, probably a google-plex.
The point is: it would never ever ever ever ever ever ever get back together happen.
Third paragraph: The odds of a newcomer beating Flash have really nothing to do with the rate by which a player can realistically improve over time. Using a nonsensical scenario to make a point that "anything is possible" does not conform to a human perception of reality because we are limited in space, time, matter, and energy. For example, if there was a huge car accident, and a woman survived somehow, someone might go "It was a miracle from God!", and a skeptic might go "You know, it's possible to not die from a car accident, and in all likelihood, I don't know if even God even exists." then some other guy goes "Hey, anything is possible! Like, a flea could destroy an Nimitz-class Aircraft Carrier in a head-to-head battle. I know the odds of this happening are very low, but it could happen, and therefore, God could exist, and this could've been a miracle." I'm not saying God does nor doesn't exist, I'm simply saying applying this kind of absurd "ridiculous scenario" logic to a perfectly logical happening just doesn't make any fucking sense.
I think we both agree on my second paragraph as well, but you of course being you had to be overly cute and ostentatious in your use of vocabulary just to win an argument by seeming intelligent.
We both understand that the probability of Flash losing to a complete scrub is probably several million times smaller than winning the lottery, but it in no way means that it doesn't exist so you shouldn't have focused your reply solely on that.
The infinite flash vs scrub theorem states that in an infinite amount of sets between Flash and a random scrub (who's skill factor according to you is 0) the scrub would win an infinite amount of games (although this infinity would be majorly dwarfed by the infinity that is the amount of Flash's wins).
The Infinite Monkey Theorem actually comes from Aristotle, who asserted that if you threw down dust, there was a very slender chance that it could for into the letters of the Annals of Ennius. The theorem basically states that given an infinite amount of time, anything that can happen, will happen.
What if something can't happen?
I'm not talking about 'skill' when comparing "Flash at the peak of his career" to the "Total scrub who has never touched StarCraft". I'm talking strictly about game-knowledge alone. If you have no knowledge, your game knowledge can be expressed as zero. In terms of skill, intelligence, adaptability, dexterity, the scrub's skill would be something very, very, very low.
Because we are working in a very limited window of StarCraft, where you start with 4 workers in one of 4 places, and with no knowledge of the game, there is no possibility of a build order being executed correctly, including a 4-pool. But let's say a 4-pool somehow happened. "Flash at the peak of his career" would simply be able to defend the attack.
Simply put, Flash would have to have to have some lapse in mechanics or judgment, but since you specifically dictated that it would be Flash at his very best, there would be no lapse in mechanics or judgment large enough to ever to produce a win, therefore, the scrub would simply would have to rely his game knowledge, which is non-existent. Furthermore, Flash would have to make an enormous number of mistakes at the very fundamental levels of the game for the scrub to be able to even have advantage to exploit, but even this were the case, the scrub has zero knowledge of how to exploit any openings present, so any exploitation would have to be pure luck - which might make you go "Aha! So there is a probability." but there really isn't considering that Flash would not make an enormous number of mistakes at the very fundamental levels of the game, whereas the scrub undoubtedly would.
To put this in StarCraft terms:
A marine has a range of 4 (5 maximum) A siege tank has a range of 7 without siege
If the marine and siege tank fight head-on, the siege tank will undoubtedly get the first hit. The marine may get one shot at the tank, but after the second shot, the marine dies. The marine will never win, no matter how many times this scenario is reproduced, because all of the variables that are important to the outcome of the fight are limited, and are not subject to change.
For the scrub to even theoretically have a chance, he would have to have incredible adaptability to be able to sit down in front of a game like StarCraft, understand basic concepts of the game, then process those basic concepts into more advanced concepts, then have the dexterity to execute those concepts into strategies, and then have intimate knowledge of the map, costs of units, economy management, multi-tasking, unit composition, unit positioning, unit speeds, building and upgrade speeds/costs, spell-casting abilities, physical timing, reaction timing, worker-to-army ratios, and many, many more amazingly difficult learning experiences all in his first sitting. The human mind does not have the computing power to do something like that. I'm talking about limited values on tangible things, and you're talking about unlimited values on abstract things.
Also, monkeys would not write the entire works of Shakespeare, because it is a well-known fact that monkeys hate Shakespeare.
You can make the right decisions by pure luck or by simply closing your eyes and randomly clicking the mouse and spamming the keyboard now this probably wouldn't happen during the lifespan of the universe, but in infinity everything that can happen eventually happens. 4 Pool versus a 14 CC buildorder win probably has the most likely chance of happening it's still as slim as fuck and I'm pretty sure it wouldn't happen in a conceivable amount of time. Of course the zerglings would also have to be micro'd correctly by pure luck.
I am right and I know what you mean and I agree to an extent, but I am also right.
I really don't understand what you are trying to do by arguing with me it's not like I'm not aware of what you are saying and it's not like you aren't aware of the most miniature chance of Flash losing a game to a complete scrub. The example I choose to gave was bad and I admit it especially in the context that it was used, but it still holds strong with whatever little meaning it had.
You guys argue about the most ridiculously pointless unrelated shit, like seriously, it is always the same people derailing BW threads just to try to feel like they won the argument / disagreement , create some sort of feeling of self indulgence because they feel like they have to be right 100% of the time. The problem here is we have people who like to argue a lot, and neither one of you will ever admit when the other is right or wrong.
Get over yourselves and lets get back to what this thread is actually about.
On January 26 2013 02:54 GGzerG wrote: You guys argue about the most ridiculously pointless unrelated shit, like seriously, it is always the same people derailing BW threads just to try to feel like they won the argument / disagreement , create some sort of feeling of self indulgence because they feel like they have to be right 100% of the time. The problem here is we have people who like to argue a lot, and neither one of you will ever admit when the other is right or wrong.
Get over yourselves and lets get back to what this thread is actually about.
On January 26 2013 02:54 GGzerG wrote: You guys argue about the most ridiculously pointless unrelated shit, like seriously, it is always the same people derailing BW threads just to try to feel like they won the argument / disagreement , create some sort of feeling of self indulgence because they feel like they have to be right 100% of the time. The problem here is we have people who like to argue a lot, and neither one of you will ever admit when the other is right or wrong.
Get over yourselves and lets get back to what this thread is actually about.
I thought we were having fun here.
Even if we were having a real argument, it feels so weird hearing "Get over yourself" from GGzerG. And didn't you just come out of the blue and say this earlier?:
What skills Mca64? I beat you 4-0 or 5-0 without trying. Should I help you remember by posting replays or finding the videos in my stream archive? You have the worst attitude out of anyone in BW forums, and yes it is possible for someone to go C to B- rank in a month, that is not even close to being impossible. Get over yourself mca64, don't even try to say anything back to me, because you know what the deal is.
On January 26 2013 02:54 GGzerG wrote: You guys argue about the most ridiculously pointless unrelated shit, like seriously, it is always the same people derailing BW threads just to try to feel like they won the argument / disagreement , create some sort of feeling of self indulgence because they feel like they have to be right 100% of the time. The problem here is we have people who like to argue a lot, and neither one of you will ever admit when the other is right or wrong.
Get over yourselves and lets get back to what this thread is actually about.
I thought we were having fun here.
Even if we were having a real argument, it feels so weird hearing "Get over yourself" from GGzerG. And didn't you just come out of the blue and say this earlier?:
What skills Mca64? I beat you 4-0 or 5-0 without trying. Should I help you remember by posting replays or finding the videos in my stream archive? You have the worst attitude out of anyone in BW forums, and yes it is possible for someone to go C to B- rank in a month, that is not even close to being impossible. Get over yourself mca64, don't even try to say anything back to me, because you know what the deal is.
Yup, you totally did that.
Wow who cares, I think we all can agree that MCA talks to much with his random conspiracy theories, and trying to bash peoples skills, what I did was not even argue, since I said 1 thing and never even responded to him back, what I did was an attempt to make him understand why what he was saying was idiotic, sorry Nina, I forgot that you must have a feeling that you've come out on top of every conversation and "Argument" you ever get into with someone.
I think none replay was casted yet... L_Master tried once but had technical problems. I believe Splax vs Ninazerg was played already, but this league seems to be dead for some reason, and Kal_ra didn't update scores.
About the stream, I can ask Birdie, if he would like to cast some games. He did really good job when casting BWMN tournament and has very good video quality, including HD perspective.
Hmmm so who won? We gotta move this on, I want to play, and at this rate I'll never get to.
I'm tempted to cast some games, but I have almost 0 experience, English isn't my first language and there are way better people who should have dibs. xD
Nothing special really. I hadn't seen much of Splax's games, but literally everyone told me he was "cheesy". I watched some of the YSL reps of Splax, and he seemed to play pretty normal, but against my better judgement, I decided to be overly-cautious, which gave Splax ample room to expand and macro freely.
On February 02 2013 00:46 Bakuryu wrote: gj ninazerg, how about watching set 2 of the same final, before posting set 3. or wasnt he at his peak in that game?
Updated OP and Liquipedia. Sorry for being so inactive over the last month. Life just took priorities.. I'll put more effort in keeping this thing going so we can see a second round asap. Also working on getting a committed caster
I'll cast the replays next weekend, will try to do it all in one go if I can. More specifically, I'm looking at Sunday, Feb 17 6:00pm GMT (GMT+00:00) as the best option for the date/time of the cast.
I'm trying to figure out if that clashes with anything else, and the only thing I can find is DRIT5, which is 2 hours earlier (means I'll probably run over that for a while), so I could move it earlier one or two hours. If anyone has any suggestions about this, I'm all ears.
If I can't find a better time, I'll put it in the calendar tomorrow as the final date/time.