3 ms·
This seems like a fun analysis for the author but ultimately not very useful and doesn't even really tell us much about the so called 'discounting of fast think
by Tenoke 4y ago
This seems like a fun analysis for the author but ultimately not very useful and doesn't even really tell us much about the so called 'discounting of fast thinking'. As far as I can tell all it shows was that if a player beat someone in blitz, it doesn't make them more likely to beat them in a longer control than what ratings would predict.
They do talk of it being a proxy and confounds etc. but it just seems like there isn't much you can expect out of that test even beforehand.
- usgroup 4y agoI found the conclusion surprising personally. Ceteris paribus it isn't obvious that someone who beats you at Blitz wouldn't just beat you even more convincingly given more time. I actually find that a bit mysterious.
- Tenoke 4y agoThe analysis doesn't just check whether those who beat you in blitz beat you more in rapid but accounts for rating and win probabilities. A higher rated blitz player who is better than you at rapid will also have a higher rapid rating in the first place.
- usgroup 4y agoI don't think that is correct. The analysis explicitly matches pairs of players which have played each other in both Blitz and Rapid time control. Only the Blitz rating difference is used to estimate probability of a win under both time controls. The significance of the interaction terms in the analysis means that the Blitz rating difference does a significantly worse job at predicting who will win at Rapid.