3 ms·

Right, but if you play chess against a lot of children and crush them 100% of the time and I play against moderately experienced players and win 90% of the time

• Jtsummers 10y ago
  Fine. Fuck the analogies because yours isn't even close to the actual situation. At the time of the writing on the article I posted as a rebuttal: Each time both Silver and Diggler predicted results they agreed except for 8 states. When they didn't agree, they had an equal number of correct results (and incorrect results), 4-4. They're effectively tied. The ones that aren't predicted indicate nothing about Silver's methods other than a lack of sufficient data to put through his models. Which says something to his ethos. He doesn't just make wild stabs in the dark like a typical pundit when he doesn't have the data to back up his prediction. EDIT: Cleaned up the second paragraph. EDIT FURTHER: I suppose it's my fault. Chess was the wrong analogy if someone were to pick an analogy. It's played head-to-head, and comparison to people that aren't playing against each other requires more complex analysis. The situation here is two parties participating in an open contest, where everyone can win, everyone can lose, or something in between can occur. The point still stands. Someone not participating in a given contest doesn't equate to losing. They just aren't competing.