This is really the best, just what i wanted, already moved all my notes there,
I just miss one thing, working with images and making area screenshots, was easy in evernote, just use the hotkey and select the area and a new note with the image get created,
Now, i am using greenshot for trying to replicate this, i set my favorite save folder into Obsidian,
Problem is , an image get created, if i want to write some stuff down , i have to create a note, insert the image.
Would be perfect, if we could set a 'special' folder, and all images coming inside get automatically a note created, (the real picture is in attachment folder)
Or we can right click or a picture and convert to MD note,
Resizing images in preview too, i think it is important.
I like your ideas about images/new notes. Would help a lot moving to this from Evernote which currently has very good support for image editing / annotation.
Good question - we make money by selling Bitcoin for slightly higher than we buy it from a few sources. We aim to have very competitive prices (lower than many places you can buy Bitcoin today), but we don't have a set fee rate that we publish.
So if I understand correctly, the business model is to be the only seller in this exchange, with a profit margin justified by the convenience of instantly available Bitcoin funds.
Would it not be possible for a competitor to undermine this business model by running an exchange (based on the same technology, perhaps the same implementation) where selling is more permissive?
When we add Bitcoin sales, it will look more like what you're describing. We've experimented with an open orderbook model in the past, and we're not opposed to it, but we've found that the UX of a listed price is better for most users.
Why are Coinbase fees 1% or more while Coinbase Pro fees are 0.25%? Because noobs don't want to see an order book and hiding the order book from them is worth real money.
I would like to find the right game to do some research with CFR as i think cooperation in incomplete information games is one of the most interesting field in AI.
I would like a game :
- Turnbased
- Incomplete information (fog of war)
- Team based
- Strong cooperation and coordinations between players is requiered for win.
I started to create a 2D CSGO, but i would like to know if there are any similar game already existing.
Instead of a total collective reward being the goal, you’d have team-based scores. You’d need cooperation within the team, and aggressive action against the enemy team.
A common example undertaken in research studies uses this foot-in-the-door technique: two groups are asked to place a large, very unsightly sign in their front yard reading "Drive Carefully". The members of one group have previously been approached to put a small sign in their front window reading "Be a Safe Driver", and almost all agreed. In one study, in response to the "Drive Carefully" request 76 percent of those who were initially asked to display the small sign complied, in comparison with only 17 percent of those in the other group not exposed to the earlier, less onerous, request.
I think some card games meet your criteria. Specifically, Bridge, Hearts, and Auction Pitch (aka Setback) are all complex, turn-based, imperfect information games with some amount of cooperation. I’d love to see DeepMind take on one of these games.
AlphaCiv would be interesting as hell, but I fear that there isn't historical data for Alpha to consume. I would expect it would have a similar result to AlphaStar though-- it beats the human player before the end game.
'Anderson and co have found evidence of an entirely counterintuitive phenomenon in which skill levels play the opposite role, so that skillful players are more likely to make an error than their lower-ranked counterparts.'
I would to see more how the study was done because i highly doubt this could be possible.
It can be the case that in high ranked games the oponent will put you in harder spots, and errors will comes.
But by definition, better players take better decisions Ev average.
An interesting study will be a list of leaks the population usually have.
For exemple in pkker before solvers, people with a very strong hand on flop, lets say straight draw+ flush draw, when the board turn bad for them, they are way more likely to call a bet on river, because they hand was so strong on flop.
Solver will show is a bad call because you block possible bluffs opponent could have (flush and straight draws) so his value range is bigger.
I don't think poker is the best comparison. It has hidden information so psychology is a much bigger factor, which machines are not as good at understanding.
Regardless, this doesn't seem that surprising to me. Highly skilled players have developed a set of tools, techniques, and analysis that they are very familiar at applying. If a game enters a particularly strange but still complex position, one that would never really arise under usual high-level play, it is plausible to imagine unexpected errors may occur from time to time, as the standard high-level heuristics may not work exactly the same. Especially if the higher-level player is not being very careful.
The lower-level player, not having those heuristics, must look at the situation, like they do all positions, with a fresher perspective and far less expectations. They won't make the mistake that can come from misapplying the heuristics and tools of higher-level play, because they don't even have those heuristics.
Of course, these are specific, uncommon situations. In general, the advanced player will almost always make much better moves than the less-skilled player.
>But by definition, better players take better decisions Ev average.
Note that this is only true when expected value lines up exactly with "increases probability of winning". Lots of value calculations don't, and so better play can look strange in some situations.
Back when I was a middling chess player in High School, I'd pretty much always play King's Gambit as white when it was offered, especially against stronger players. I knew that I didn't study openings as much as other players, so I wound up in a place where I at least had as good opening book knowledge. Plus the opening is high variance, so it gave better opponents more chances to screw up and let me in the game. That said, the consensus high-level opinion on King's Gambit is that white does not get sufficient compensation for the pawn.
Or perhaps and even better example is AlphaGo Zero. When this engine is winning a Go game as it gets into endgame, it will play lines that confuse the professionals as locally sub-optimal. The pros later figured out that these moves would give up points in exchange for removing lines of play that are threatening and uncertain: instead of winning by 2.5 points with a small opportunity for the opponent to come back, AlphaGo Zero would win by 1.5 or 0.5 points without yielding any counter-play.
They were looking at 3 0 games (3 minutes for the entire game with 0 seconds added per move) with a total of 6 or fewer pieces, including kings. So stuff like King + Rook + Bishop vs King + Rook + Knight. There are a countless number of confounding variables in this study that do not seem have to been given sufficient consideration and this phenomena is likely a product of that. These sort of 3 0 endgames are generally time scrambles. The vast majority of 6 man endings reached without one player having already resigned are going to be technical draws, so the players are generally playing to win on time - not on the board.
A critical factor that the study did not consider at all was your opponent's remaining time. The stronger player is generally going to be the player that has more time left, often much more time. If you have 20 seconds and your opponent has 2 seconds left the easiest way to wrap up the game is to just make a move, any move. This means the quality of move is going to go down in a vacuum. By contrast you won't find this situation as frequently from the weaker player since they'll rarely be meaningfully up on time.
Another related pattern is that in a dead drawn time scramble a weaker player is going to be more likely to make a blunder, such as hanging a piece. And not exploiting that move (such as by taking the piece) would itself be a blunder. But in a time scramble with just 2 pieces vs 2 pieces you're often just making semi-random moves as quickly as possible - meaning you will miss the hanging piece. Again for similar reasons this is not an issue you'll find as commonly from the perspective of the weaker player both because they'll less often be substantially up on time and because the stronger player is less likely to randomly blunder, meaning just making a random move is itself less likely to be a blunder.
I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly, but there are definitely situations in which highly skilled players are badly matched against lower ranked players because the less skilled players don't play according to the expectations of a master. This game where a grandmaster lost 1347 Elo points came up on r/chess recently: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5aI3e8gccro&feature=youtu.be... and anecdotally I've seen this play out in fencing, as well.
The finding that better players make worse decisions is only under very specific conditions where the board complexity is high.
One theory could be that stronger players are going for a win which requires more risk while weaker players are happy to play a non-aggressive move looking for a draw.
Unfortunately the article didn't state if most blunders come from being ahead or behind in material.
Sometimes you need to go for the win because of external conditions (last round of a tournament, or your chess team is losing and the captain told you to press on).
Last world championship qualifiers for example saw Kramnik tilting because he needed to go all in in order to still make a chance to qualify.
I think I've noticed watching blunders in pro-chess tournies, that as a scrub chess player I see moves like: Develop, get rook to open file, don't advance pawns protecting the king, knight on rim is dim.
The pro may calculate a huge line that requires breaking a simple rule, and in the end that may come back to bite them. Where me, all I see is "hey don't leave the knight on the edge like that."
Maybe unrelated, but actually trying to think yourself out of a problem, is often worse then simply reacting on instinct. If you are really good at something you sometimes think and analyses the problem, explore new strategies, etc, instead of doing something you know works.
Just a guess, but it reminds me of a comment I heard a semi-pro poker player make about playing with amateurs (waaay casual amateurs, mostly playing to pass the time while traveling for sports competitions).
He said that he was commonly surprised when he'd make a move that would be immediately seen by his peers as aggressive, or strong, and cause them to back off or fold, while with us, it just went right over our heads and we'd miss it entirely...
Seems like lower-skilled players could simply not see some of the complexity that confounds a higher skill player, and an even higher skill player would handle. A sort of local minima anomaly for skill.
Or, maybe like tho old saying: "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread".
This is why playing poker against unskilled players is easy but not so much fun — you just consistently have to show down value because bluffs and bluff-inducing plays just aren’t understood by the lower-skilled opponents.
The biggest challenge for me when I play less-skilled players is to maintain a solid showdown game — it just gets boring compared to high-level play.
I don't think they correctly realized the meaning of these blunders, most games are skilled-vs-skilled or amateur-vs-amateur, and for every blunder a skilled person makes there was a trap another skilled player placed. The way I see it, skilled players are more experienced at leading their opponents into exploitable complex conditions, whereas amateurs tend towards simpler board positions that are easier to reason about, and it is not uncommon for blunders to be missed by both sides.
Anyway I'm not sure they could control for the skill of the players in both sets, because their dataset is probably missing amateur-vs-skilled data, which probably renders most of their skill-based correlations incomplete, as we don't know if they correlate to the skill of the player making the mistake or their opponent.
> by definition, better players take better decisions Ev average.
My experience has been that, in everything with a competitive aspect, there is a phenomenon where suboptimal choices become optimal because they are unexpected.
Chess, war, video games, sports, everything. As you point out, in the long run, the better player comes out ahead. That's what "being better" means. But the long run isn't always what counts. Sometimes two competitors are going to meet exactly once or the situation is going to be "winner takes all".
I just miss one thing, working with images and making area screenshots, was easy in evernote, just use the hotkey and select the area and a new note with the image get created,
Now, i am using greenshot for trying to replicate this, i set my favorite save folder into Obsidian, Problem is , an image get created, if i want to write some stuff down , i have to create a note, insert the image.
Would be perfect, if we could set a 'special' folder, and all images coming inside get automatically a note created, (the real picture is in attachment folder)
Or we can right click or a picture and convert to MD note,
Resizing images in preview too, i think it is important.
Thank you for your work.