Specifically, in a match of minimum 48 points to have a chance of 80% of scoring a single point you need to be at least as good as 3.3% of her. Or in other words, she can be 30 times better than you. If your expectation is just a 50% chance to score a single point, it is enough to be 1.5% good as her, so she can be 67 times better than you.
Sex aside, i wouldn’t assume pro athletes to be 67x better than i am in many sports. Usain Bolt is not running 67x faster than i am, nor is Michael Phelps swimming 67x faster than i am.
In other words: This study is not a test for the arrogance of men, but rather a test for the statistical aptitude of humans. Which general is terrible.
Athletic skill:athletic feat isn’t a linear scale - Phelps might not be 67x faster than you but he is absolutely 67x(+++) more skilled. There’s pretty much zero chance you pick up a win vs him unless he dies mid race or something
You underestimate how much better experts are to everyone else. For chess, for example, the Elo rating for a beginner who knows the rules is about 500, a weak club player around 1200, a good club player around 1700, a master around 2200, and the world champion around 2800.
For each of these jumps the difference is about 70 times better, as in the person with the weaker rating is expected to win one out of 70 times.
So the world champion is not just 70 times better than a beginner, they are a few million times better.
I’m not saying tennis works exactly the same way as chess, but people really underestimate just how much better some people are at some things. At that difference, the beginner and the champ could play games 24/7 for centuries and the beginner would never win one game.
The idea that 67x better means a 67x linear increase in speed is nonsense. Usain Bolt does not need to be 67x faster than you, it’s enough to be somewhat faster in all 67 out of 67 races, which he would be.
Usain Bolt would also win 67 out of 67 races against the second best sprinter in the world. The mode is completely different. In the same wake for chess. Whether you win a game or not is a culmination of dozens of turns. So for chess it is more closer to a match of tennis, rather than scoring a point. And i am pretty sure that i could play a game of chess against Magnus Carlsen himself and beat at least one stone, while loosing catastrophically otherwise.
It’s more like playing chess with Magnus and making one move that the analysis judged a better move, since losing one piece of material might be advantageous for winning. And while that may not take centuries to happen, it is sure not a 50/50 chance or even a 1% chance.
Or in a race with Usain Bolt, you would not take even one of your steps faster than any of his steps, either.
Specifically, in a match of minimum 48 points to have a chance of 80% of scoring a single point you need to be at least as good as 3.3% of her. Or in other words, she can be 30 times better than you. If your expectation is just a 50% chance to score a single point, it is enough to be 1.5% good as her, so she can be 67 times better than you.
Sex aside, i wouldn’t assume pro athletes to be 67x better than i am in many sports. Usain Bolt is not running 67x faster than i am, nor is Michael Phelps swimming 67x faster than i am.
In other words: This study is not a test for the arrogance of men, but rather a test for the statistical aptitude of humans. Which general is terrible.
Athletic skill:athletic feat isn’t a linear scale - Phelps might not be 67x faster than you but he is absolutely 67x(+++) more skilled. There’s pretty much zero chance you pick up a win vs him unless he dies mid race or something
You underestimate how much better experts are to everyone else. For chess, for example, the Elo rating for a beginner who knows the rules is about 500, a weak club player around 1200, a good club player around 1700, a master around 2200, and the world champion around 2800.
For each of these jumps the difference is about 70 times better, as in the person with the weaker rating is expected to win one out of 70 times.
So the world champion is not just 70 times better than a beginner, they are a few million times better.
I’m not saying tennis works exactly the same way as chess, but people really underestimate just how much better some people are at some things. At that difference, the beginner and the champ could play games 24/7 for centuries and the beginner would never win one game.
The idea that 67x better means a 67x linear increase in speed is nonsense. Usain Bolt does not need to be 67x faster than you, it’s enough to be somewhat faster in all 67 out of 67 races, which he would be.
Usain Bolt would also win 67 out of 67 races against the second best sprinter in the world. The mode is completely different. In the same wake for chess. Whether you win a game or not is a culmination of dozens of turns. So for chess it is more closer to a match of tennis, rather than scoring a point. And i am pretty sure that i could play a game of chess against Magnus Carlsen himself and beat at least one stone, while loosing catastrophically otherwise.
It’s more like playing chess with Magnus and making one move that the analysis judged a better move, since losing one piece of material might be advantageous for winning. And while that may not take centuries to happen, it is sure not a 50/50 chance or even a 1% chance.
Or in a race with Usain Bolt, you would not take even one of your steps faster than any of his steps, either.