the monty hall problem kinda seems to be a big problem because it gets explained badly
First, you pick a door, but this time you have to pick one door out of 100 doors. After you have picked one, 98 wrong doors are opened and there are 2 doors left unopened - the one you picked and the correct door. Will you change now?
the monty hall problem kinda seems to be a big problem because it gets explained badly
Part of the difficulty when dealing with 3 doors is that "all but one of the remaining doors" and "one door" are the same, but if you expand it to something big like 1000 then the former is 998, making it more obvious what's happening.
Daniel Naroditsky's rating climb speedrun series are probably the most educational chess videos I've seen on youtube, though they are definitely more focused on the intermediate level, or at least the "I know the basic concepts and a few openings, but that's it" type of players.
As someone who was once experienced enough in chess to regularly get paired up in chess tournaments with masters in the semi-finals (and lose, usually) honestly the main thing about chess is to improve past a certain point it's mainly a massive time commitment.
Like chess is, except at the highest levels, mostly just pattern recognition. But if you want any more detailed advice I'd suggest that once you get past the point where you consistently hang your own pieces you probably practice endgames first. (I say as someone who will likely never touch chess again.)
the monty hall problem kinda seems to be a big problem because it gets explained badly
The way I had it explained to me to finally get it was focusing on my odds of being wrong for each choice. As in the first three doors I have a high 2/3 chance of picking the wrong door. When one false door is taken away and I am asked if I want to switch to the only remaining door, I now have a 1/2 chance of being wrong for this pick, which are much better odds because by sticking with my original choice I am still in that 2/3 chance of wrongness.
the monty hall problem kinda seems to be a big problem because it gets explained badly
The way I had it explained to me to finally get it was focusing on my odds of being wrong for each choice. As in the first three doors I have a high 2/3 chance of picking the wrong door. When one false door is taken away and I am asked if I want to switch to the only remaining door, I now have a 1/2 chance of being wrong for this pick, which are much better odds because by sticking with my original choice I am still in that 2/3 chance of wrongness.
yeah no this shit still seems fake to me
the final choice is still a 50/50 no matter how many extra steps it took to get there, which makes staying as valid as swapping
like it's not a matter of not getting the logic behind it, it's a matter of the logic being horseshit
I'm convinced that statisticians or whoever are fucking gaslighting us
the monty hall problem kinda seems to be a big problem because it gets explained badly
The way I had it explained to me to finally get it was focusing on my odds of being wrong for each choice. As in the first three doors I have a high 2/3 chance of picking the wrong door. When one false door is taken away and I am asked if I want to switch to the only remaining door, I now have a 1/2 chance of being wrong for this pick, which are much better odds because by sticking with my original choice I am still in that 2/3 chance of wrongness.
yeah no this shit still seems fake to me
the final choice is still a 50/50 no matter how many extra steps it took to get there, which makes staying as valid as swapping
like it's not a matter of not getting the logic behind it, it's a matter of the logic being horseshit
I'm convinced that statisticians or whoever are fucking gaslighting us
the monty hall problem kinda seems to be a big problem because it gets explained badly
The way I had it explained to me to finally get it was focusing on my odds of being wrong for each choice. As in the first three doors I have a high 2/3 chance of picking the wrong door. When one false door is taken away and I am asked if I want to switch to the only remaining door, I now have a 1/2 chance of being wrong for this pick, which are much better odds because by sticking with my original choice I am still in that 2/3 chance of wrongness.
yeah no this shit still seems fake to me
the final choice is still a 50/50 no matter how many extra steps it took to get there, which makes staying as valid as swapping
like it's not a matter of not getting the logic behind it, it's a matter of the logic being horseshit
I'm convinced that statisticians or whoever are fucking gaslighting us
And a 50/50 is much better than a 33/66.
that isn't relevant! the "do you swap" choice is entirely disconnected from the "pick one of three" choice!
hell, the promise of always revealing a bad door and then asking again makes the first choice pure theatrics, and in practical terms you may as well have started at the coin toss!
I uh... suggest you make 3 cards and pretend to bet on one, then have a friend or family member take one away and see how many times you win by staying. It won't be 50/50 and you may find it easier to come to terms with the logic.
I uh... suggest you make 3 cards and pretend to bet on one, then have a friend or family member take one away and see how many times you win by staying. It won't be 50/50 and you may find it easier to come to terms with the logic.
The stats only work out like that with... thousands of tries? More? Which is why humans are so bad at understanding this stuff, in day to day experience you can't play it out in the way you're suggesting.
It's statistically different enough that you should be able to see it pretty quick actually. Software like the above makes it a lot quicker, but if you don't trust that, you could pound out enough games by hand in an hour or two that you will notice one method giving you more wins then the other.
Posts
agadmator is good, but generally he assumes you're going to know a lot about chess and goes very fast
https://youtu.be/c8W-auqg024
Steam // Secret Satan
After a miserable week I appreciate the effort that went into something so silly.
Marc Rebillet has done a commercial for a German supermarket
First, you pick a door, but this time you have to pick one door out of 100 doors. After you have picked one, 98 wrong doors are opened and there are 2 doors left unopened - the one you picked and the correct door. Will you change now?
Part of the difficulty when dealing with 3 doors is that "all but one of the remaining doors" and "one door" are the same, but if you expand it to something big like 1000 then the former is 998, making it more obvious what's happening.
BFG to Berlin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2skmBe07aQ&list=PLT1F2nOxLHOfQ-eoJTpyvKkQFwYewDduj
Daniel Naroditsky's rating climb speedrun series are probably the most educational chess videos I've seen on youtube, though they are definitely more focused on the intermediate level, or at least the "I know the basic concepts and a few openings, but that's it" type of players.
Like chess is, except at the highest levels, mostly just pattern recognition. But if you want any more detailed advice I'd suggest that once you get past the point where you consistently hang your own pieces you probably practice endgames first. (I say as someone who will likely never touch chess again.)
https://youtu.be/8u-WeGy0vIw
embrace oblivion
Already done
https://www.paypal.me/hobnailtaylor
The way I had it explained to me to finally get it was focusing on my odds of being wrong for each choice. As in the first three doors I have a high 2/3 chance of picking the wrong door. When one false door is taken away and I am asked if I want to switch to the only remaining door, I now have a 1/2 chance of being wrong for this pick, which are much better odds because by sticking with my original choice I am still in that 2/3 chance of wrongness.
Join a club and/or play matches online.
Combine that either with books on theory and tactics or YouTube channels (I have to imagine good channels exist, I just don’t know them.)
Personally I found reading a book on opening theory to be helpful because without that I found the opening of the game to be a bit directionless.
https://youtu.be/4BsXoSlVUiA
yeah no this shit still seems fake to me
the final choice is still a 50/50 no matter how many extra steps it took to get there, which makes staying as valid as swapping
like it's not a matter of not getting the logic behind it, it's a matter of the logic being horseshit
I'm convinced that statisticians or whoever are fucking gaslighting us
And a 50/50 is much better than a 33/66.
that is not a hypothetical, it is a promise
that isn't relevant! the "do you swap" choice is entirely disconnected from the "pick one of three" choice!
hell, the promise of always revealing a bad door and then asking again makes the first choice pure theatrics, and in practical terms you may as well have started at the coin toss!
You pick the car and switch, you lose.
You pick zonk 1 and switch, you win.
You pick zonk 2 and switch, you win.
You pick the car and stay, you win.
You pick zonk 1 and stay, you lose.
You pick zonk 2 and stay, you lose.
Is the explanation that finally got through to me. Says "win" more after switch than after stay. That's just math.
The stats only work out like that with... thousands of tries? More? Which is why humans are so bad at understanding this stuff, in day to day experience you can't play it out in the way you're suggesting.
You can just run it yourself.
https://www.mathwarehouse.com/monty-hall-simulation-online/
Edit oh someone already posted it.
But anyway yeah I kinda thought it explained it really well
Tumblr | Twitter PSN: misterdapper Av by Satellite_09