Talk:1392: Dominant Players

Explain xkcd: It's 'cause you're dumb.
Revision as of 16:45, 15 July 2014 by (talk)
Jump to: navigation, search

This may be related to the recent MOBA segregation controversy: (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

What is the significance of the line colors? (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

I think the red lines are those players that were undisputed #1 for a significant period. 08:02, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
But Petrosian has no colored line, although he was world champion. Maybe he did not have the highest ELO rating despite being WC?Jkrstrt (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Ya, this line colouring thing is bugging me. :P Jarod997 (talk) 14:22, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The lack of explanation of the red lines bugs me too. Makes me think this comic was rushed, or never finished. 22:18, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Dashed lines are apparently for the period before ELO ratings existed, taking 1965 as a start point (midway between the point in time when ELO rating was adopted by USCF and FIDE, respectively. There seems to be an exception for Alekhine -or is that a very long dash? Jkrstrt (talk) 09:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Naughty Randall, always label your axes! Kaa-ching (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The comment in the women's rankings about Kira Zvorykina is a little odd. One would hope she continued playing in tournaments into the 20th century, given that the first 81 years of her life were in the 20th century. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

While at the time, the V-1 was called a "Flying Bomb", wikipedia indeed calls it an early pulse-jet ancestor of the modern cruise missile: . I built a model of one in an 8th grade rocketry club, replacing the pulse jet with an Estes D-6-0. Mine took off, but sure enough, yes, the stubby wings stalled easily, the flight path was a weird s curve as the wings stalled out twice while under thrust.Seebert (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Link to the game against Deep Blue, anybody? Also, shouldn't the title text be at least mentioned? 09:13, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Kasparov-Deep Blue Games: (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The explanation says in the first sentence that for chess there's an overall rating and a woman's rating in the comic. All I see is a men's rating and a woman's rating, no overall rating, however. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

As Judith Polgar is present in the first chart, it appears to be an overall, not specifically a men's chart.Jkrstrt (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
My impression is that the above is the Men's Chart but with Judit added (hence the note), because (although unsure because of the curse of unlabelled axes) some of the other top-ranking-women-but-not-top-ranking-overall would still earn a position on the above 'graph'.
(Also, something in me wanted a reference to Chess-Boxing, but it appears that was not the aim.) 13:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
There is no "woman" ranking.Chvsanchez (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Anyone knows why Viswanathan Anand is not included (or am I blind?) Marty / I had the exact same question. It appears that this is a West and Russian centric view of the world Indianrediff (talk) 13:23, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

No. Koneru Humpy is mentioned. He's a big Carlson fan and I think he doesn't like Anand. One of his old comics suggested that. Probably never realised Anand met and beat Carlson back in 2008. 16:37, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
Out of pure curiosity, could anyone please upload an image/link of how Anand's curve might look, if it was added to the graph? I'm not a huge chess fan, but I am interested in seeing the extent of Randall's possible bias in this regard. 05:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

For me it feels weirder to see Stefanova there, but not Topalov. Then again, for some reason Bulgarian media keep a low profile of her. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~) It's Julius Erving not Irving. 13:27, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The choice of basketball and chess is something to think about. This mostly is about chess, and basketball represents the physical sports. It immediately stands out that chess players have much longer careers than basketball players. Jim E (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

Something else I think someone needs to look at is the line of best fit. For basketball it's basically horizontal, but for chess it tends to curve upwards. I'd add it myself, but I feel like there's more than just that and I'm missing something. Athang (talk) 16:53, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of this interpretation, so it might be just me, but I immediately read the juxtaposition of basketball to chess as a contrast of how skill at the top level of basketball is essentially stagnant, whereas the best chess players have been outstripping their predecessors for decades. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

The y-axis is unlabelled, that's annoying -- 19:53, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

A couple points; 1) I would interpret the Basketball vs. Chess dichotomy as a slam against basketball, with the (largely) serious comments about chess vs. pointing out movies on BB. There are a jillion things he could have chosen to comment on - why highlight the embarassing career moves of BB players? (2) The rating system for BB has an (essentially) static upper limit, whereas these chess rating systems have larger upper bounds as the player pool grows, so comparisons of upper bounds are unfair. That may be part of the point, or a dishonest comparison. Not sure of Randall's motivations. (not that I like BB anyways...) (3) No comparison to women's BB is made - so this further inclines me to think that there are two separate agendas here: (i) physical BB vs. mental chess and (ii) women's rights in chess. An honest comparison would include women's BB as well. (4) The vertical axis on the graphs do not start at zero, so the scaling could be correct... just somewhat deceiving by violating fundmental rules of creating graphs (no labels, inconsistent scales and they have non-zero bases). (5) Red lines are *generally* the top person at some point in their career for more than 5(?) years (David Robinson seems like the tell)

All in all, rather disappointed in the seemingly conflicting political agendas and poorly represented graphs. Chorb (talk) 21:36, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Also, please note that player efficiency ratings and similar "aggregate scores" are the subject of much discussion in basketball due to inherent biases, and their performance is particularly poor when comparing players from different eras. Attempts at adjusting for pace and game styles have not been too successful so far. (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Statistician Jeff Sonas produced his famous research in 2005. You can find his graph here: (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I have more or less included all the info and thoughts above, and added data tables, and links to a graph of another sources paths. I have thus completed the comic. But feel free to improve or add more (or if still not complete enough please note why and mark it as incomplete again.) ;-) Kynde (talk) 18:31, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

This comic had the potential to be really cool, but Randall just had to go all social justice soldier and shit it up with benevolent-sexist feminism. "Here's the 'regular' graph: Chess. And here's the other graph: Chess (Women!) (They're different) (They're special) (I'm not reinforcing social inequality by doing this, I'm changing it for the better!)." Yeah, eat shit, Randall. 16:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)