C Ranks Game of Thrones - Page 12

On January 18 2013 07:45 ninazerg wrote:


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.

On January 18 2013 07:45 ninazerg wrote:


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.

On January 25 2013 20:47 ninazerg wrote:


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.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxG7A7kTrE4

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 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.