2014 Chosang Realestate Cup(Merchants Property Cup)

[trout]

This is Korea vs China team competition.

1st round - 3/21/2014
2nd round - 3/23/2014 (Korea time)

Korean Team;Byun Sangil, Na Hyun, Lee Jihyun(selected through tournament),
Lee Sedol, Park Junghwan(captain), Kim Jiseok, Choi Cheolhan(Seeded)

Chinese Team; Zhou Ruiyang, Fan Tingyu, Chen Yaoye, Gu Li, Mi Yuting, Tang Weixing, Shi Yue(captain)

1st round - 3/21 11am (Korea time)
Park Junghwan vs Zhou Ruiyang
Kim Jiseok vs Fan Tingyu
Na Hyun vs Chen Yaoye
Byun Sangil vs Gu Li
Lee Sedol vs Mi Yuting
Lee Jihyun vs Tang Weixing
Choi Cheolhan vs Shi Yue

2nd round - 3/23 10am (Korea time)
Park Junghwan vs Shi Yue
Kim Jiseok vs Zhou Ruiyang
Na Hyun vs Fan Tingyu
Byun Sangil vs Chen Yaoye
Lee Sedol vs Gu Li
Lee Jihyun vs Mi Yuting
Choi Cheolhan vs Tang Weixing

[wolfking]

Thank you Trout!

Here is what I found from Tom.com:

Chinese Team: Shi Yue 时越, Zhou Ruiyang 周睿羊, Fan Tingyu 范廷钰， Chen Yaoye 陈耀烨，Gu Li 古力, Mi Yuting 芈昱廷, Tang Weixing 唐韦星.

First round 3/21/2014:

Zhou Ruiyang vs Park Junghwan(Captain)
Fan Tingyu vs Kim Jiseok
Chen Yaoye vs Na Hyun
Gu Li vs Byun Sangil
Mi Yuting vs Lee Sedol
Tang Weixing vs Lee Jihyun
Shi Yue(Captain) vs Choi Cheolhan

Second round 3/23/2014：

Shi Yue(Captain) vs Park Junghwan(Captain)
Zhou Ruiyang vs Kim Jiseok
Fan Tingyu vs Na Hyun
Chen Yaoye vs Byun Sangil
Gu Li vs Lee Sedol
Mi Yuting vs Lee Jihyun
Tang Weixing vs Choi Cheolhan

[trout]

Korean Team;

Park Junghwan


Kim Jiseok


Lee Sedol


Choi Cheolhan


Na Hyun


Byun Sangil


Lee Jihyun

Chinese Team;

Shi Yue


Chen Yaoye


Gu Li


Zhou Ruiyang


Mi Yuting


Fan Tingyu


Tang Weixing

[trout]

Result of 1st round;

Lee Sedol defeated Mi Yuting by resign.
Shi Yue defeated Choi Cheolhan by resign.
Park Junghwan defeated Zhou Ruiyang by resign.
Na Hyun defeated Chen Yaoye by resign.
Tang Weixing defeated Lee Jihyun by resign.
Fan Tingyu defeated Kim Jiseok by resign.
Byun Sangil defeated Gu Li by resign.

Korea vs China 4:3

[trout]

Result of 2nd round

Gu Li defeated Lee Sedol by resign.
Chen Yaoye defeated Byun Sangil by resign.
Tang Weixing defeated Choi Cheolhan by resign.
Na Hyun defeated Fan Tingyu by resign.
Kim Jiseok defeated Zhou Ruiyang by resign.
Mi Yuting defeated Lee Jihyun by resign.
Park Junghwan defeated Shi Yue by resign.

Kprea vs China 3:4
Total 7:7 but Korea's captain Park Junghwan defeated China's captain Shi Yue. So Korea is winner of this tournament.

[Hushfield]

Alright. Nice by Gu Li, beating Lee Sedol here. Perhaps he can use the momentum to swing back in the ten-game match as well.

[Pippen]

Alright. Nice by Gu Li, beating Lee Sedol here. Perhaps he can use the momentum to swing back in the ten-game match as well.

Well, it was a game where Lee Sedol - in my humble opinion - was clearly ahead after the first 100 moves. It was one of those games where you do not wanna play White because Black (at least optically) seemed to have so much more influence/territory that you do not know how to handle it properly. Then Gu Li teared apart Black's right side with what I would call a Vietcong-like attack series^^. I was surprised that Li could win this game.

I do not see any momentum from this game in respect to the Jubango. The odds would be better for Li if he would have lost this game, because then he would have lost the last 4?!? games in a row and pure proability would say that a win would have to come soon for Li, assuming that both players are equally strong - which I believe so (this is from the perspective of the so-called large numbers). In short one can say: With this win he jinxed his chances in the Jubango and Sedol will probaly lead 3-0 after next week^^.

[hyperpape]

Pippen, if you're serious, you're committing what's known as the gambler's fallacy. No matter how many times a fair coin comes up tails in a row, it's no more or less than 50% for the next flip.

Of course, with humans there is psychology to deal with. You could say we're outside of pure probability (or more technically that the assumption of independence does not hold). However, from what I know of other sports, explanations in terms of momentum or the "hot hand" tend to not actually be very accurate. So contra you and Hushfield, I suspect that we know nothing about how this game will affect the jubango.

[Pippen]

Pippen, if you're serious, you're committing what's known as the gambler's fallacy. No matter how many times a fair coin comes up tails in a row, it's no more or less than 50% for the next flip.

My argument is more inspired by the law of large numbers. If you flip a coin 1000 times it will be about 500 times "heads", so if you have already flipped the coin 500 times and with always "tails" then "it'd be time" for "heads" to show up to justify the law of large numbers. Of course all depends on what a large number is. You could say in this example that 1000 is too little and so on. But the point is: If a row is established where things should alternate then - in the long run - it increases the chances of breaking that row. That may be logically a fallacy, but not practically. If you have a revolver with just two chambers and you play russian roulette then with your idea - after let's say 5 successful attempts - you could say: Next try (6th) I survive with a probability of 50%, good deal, I'll do it again. Probability theory would suggest it is sane, because your shot is 50%, but nobody would do it, because actually it is not 50%, but smaller, because the row of having success has to be changed sooner or later to validify the law of large numbers.

So in that sense: If Sedol would have won, he's be 5-0 and Li was due to win game 6th. But since Li won, he jinxed it. It's completely open again, 50/50^^.

(I should state that I do have very slim knowledge of stochastics, so be aware of my theories )

[Uberdude]

Pippen, if you're serious, you're committing what's known as the gambler's fallacy. No matter how many times a fair coin comes up tails in a row, it's no more or less than 50% for the next flip.

My argument is more inspired by the law of large numbers. If you flip a coin 1000 times it will be about 500 times "heads", so if you have already flipped the coin 500 times and with always "tails" then "it'd be time" for "heads" to show up to justify the law of large numbers.

No.

[Pippen]

Pippen, if you're serious, you're committing what's known as the gambler's fallacy. No matter how many times a fair coin comes up tails in a row, it's no more or less than 50% for the next flip.

My argument is more inspired by the law of large numbers. If you flip a coin 1000 times it will be about 500 times "heads", so if you have already flipped the coin 500 times and with always "tails" then "it'd be time" for "heads" to show up to justify the law of large numbers.

No.

If the law of large numbers is true then heads have to show up somehow soon & plenty if it didn't in the first 500 attempts out of 1000. Of course that is simplifying it, because there is no specific large number, so a math-guy would tell: do it 10.000 times and you'll get it 50/50, and if it didn't he'd tell you to do it even more and so on, but anyway: at one point heads have to show up after a consecutive row of tails. At one point Li had to win after a row of Sedol and he did it - just at the wrong time.

[Uberdude]

If the law of large numbers is true then heads have to show up somehow soon & plenty if it didn't in the first 500 attempts out of 1000.

No. Please learn some basic probability. Or even just read the wikipedia page about the law of large numbers seeing as you seem to like talking about it so much.

[Pippen]

Wikipedia: In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

If Li/Sedol are equally strong then their win-loss ratio should tend to 50% in the long run and obviously that suggests that Li will need to win some games after Sedol has won all so far (we assume we start with the first Jubango game). It's just a more global view to the local view of the odds being 50:50. If you flip the coin 20 times and get 20 heads then in the next flip it's still 50:50 to get tails, but when you look from the LLN-perspective you can see a tendency for tails to come up, if e.g. you set 100 times as the maximum of the experiment. (Of course in math this large number not something like 100 or a concrete number, but basically an infinite sequence of experiments, so one could always state that LLN does not say anything - even in tendency - about the next attempt, but then LLN becomes impractical, because infallible.)

[Uberdude]

Wikipedia: In probability theory, the law of large numbers (LLN) is a theorem that describes the result of performing the same experiment a large number of times. According to the law, the average of the results obtained from a large number of trials should be close to the expected value, and will tend to become closer as more trials are performed.

If Li/Sedol are equally strong then their win-loss ratio should tend to 50% in the long run and obviously that suggests that Li will need to win some games after Sedol has won all so far (we assume we start with the first Jubango game). It's just a more global view to the local view of the odds being 50:50. If you flip the coin 20 times and get 20 heads then in the next flip it's still 50:50 to get tails, but when you look from the LLN-perspective you can see a tendency for tails to come up, if e.g. you set 100 times as the maximum of the experiment.

No. It says nothing of the sort. It says that if you do many more trials then the initial bunch of heads will disappear into insignificance.

Another quote from the introduction of Wikipedia:

There is no principle that a small number of observations will coincide with the expected value or that a streak of one value will immediately be "balanced" by the others. See the Gambler's fallacy.

[uPWarrior]

No. People have already told you that you are falling for the Gambler's fallacy, I'll leave you the link this time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gambler's_fallacy