🏅 Top traders

resolution of market 31. Rxc7:

resolution score: 0.946968

corresponding market value: 0.784842

probabilistically rounded: 79%

31. Rxc7: Average market value: 0.650000

31. Rxc7: score: 0.920000

Winner: 31. Rxc7

--------------------

resolution of market 30. Re7+:

resolution score: 0.920000

corresponding market value: 0.920000

probabilistically rounded: 92%

@harfe typo in description: “do not work on the same schale”

I could well be being thick but I don't follow at all. I think I follow the purpose and if I expect white to win in less than 100 moves the score at the game end is over 0.96. However I am lost as to what is the score after move 32. You have stated this to be "the score (not market value) of the winning move in move 32." but I don't follow what this means.

@ChristopherRandles think of the winning market 32 probability as saying “how much will the score increase/decrease as a result of this move”. So a market of 50% means no change, and each 5% deviation from there makes the score 0.01 higher/lower. So 70% means the score will rise by 0.04, 25% the score falls by 0.05 and so on.

@deagol where I say “the score will rise/fall” it’s in relation to the (rounded and capped) score after this move, which is similarly leveraged as per the table. So there’s the exception if the score after this move is above 0.9 (or below 0.1), then the centered 50% will remain at 0.9 (what’s called z in the description here), even if the score can be higher. So in that case you could see the next conditional markets as saying something like “how much higher than 0.9 will the score be after this move” and 50% maps to 0.9.

Thanks for the replies. That begins to make more sense though I don't understand how you figure this out from the wording here. It sounds like you are saying the score is the change in market value of the "Will white win in Manifold Plays Chess, part 3?" claim despite the wording here clearly saying it is "not market value".

@ChristopherRandles No, that market is independent of the score except when the game ends. The score is only dependent on the winning conditionals probabilities. It used to be a 1:1 correspondence until now, i.e. the score after each move was the last 4h average probability or market value of the winning conditional. From this move on, the score is a piecewise linear transformation of those same average probabilities, such that the natural market center of 50% corresponds to the previous score (but rounded) and the rate of increase/decrease is leveraged 5:1.

@ChristopherRandles

You can check the score as reported by @harfe in comments after the close of the conditionals for each move:

This is the current score (after move 30): 0.885494

compare to the previous score (after move 29): 0.819723

and the one before that (move 28): 0.767424

Those all match the average probability over the last 4h of the respective winning conditional markets. There’s absolutely no direct relation to the main game market probability, other than traders there inducing a back-propagation evaluation. Note the current score (0.885494) has been rounded to z=0.89 and used here as the corresponding “re-centered” 50% market value for this market’s score determination as well as the resolution of move 30’s winning conditional. A similar “re-centering” will apply for the next move (32), around this new score from this market (but rounded and no higher than 0.9 giving us a new z).

For example, suppose the current market value of 65% holds constant into the close of this market. Then the score, as per the table in the description, would be 0.92, and the previous move 30 winning conditional market resolves to that as 92%. Then, for the next move 32, the table (or piecewise linear transform) will be re-centered at z=0.9 (because the score exceeded the cap) for a market value of 50%, and using the same 5x leverage you’ll note gets you to 100% for a score of 1. Now let’s say that next move 32 winning conditional market averages 35% (they must have picked some blunder candidates or perhaps some whale manipulator forced this), then that 35% market value corresponds to a score after move 32 (0.5-0.35)/5=0.03 below 0.9, =0.87, and that value would be used to resolve this market (move 31) using the table above, at PROB=40% (and I’d lose mana given my bullish bets here). And so on until the final move’s resolution which will depend on the score determined differently which you mentioned, as the game outcome penalized by the number of moves.

Phew, hope this helps! Yeah, I know it’s quite a hairy thing to explain but I feel it’s simpler to understand than communicate precisely.

Do you think "leverage" is an ok name for the new thing we are trying here? One idea was that you can profit more from smaller differences in score.

@harfe I think of it as first re-centering or normalizing to 50% and then leveraging x5