Author: Don Dailey
Date: 18:00:44 07/22/98
Go up one level in this thread
>What number were you using? to get a probability of 50% winning chances, >you simply solve for .5=X^5 because there were 5 rounds (^5) and you assume >a probability of X for winning a particular round. Some sample numbers: > >X=.9 (90%) gives a 59% probability of winning all 5 games. If you allow for a >draw in the games, > >X=.8 gives a 38% probability of winning all 5 games. > >When I talked to Hsu after the tournament, he told me that they thought that >they had a > 90% probability of winning any single game there, which was the >same number I used myself. Because >90% probability is over a 400 point rating >difference, which I thought was about right. > >The last time I did this for Cray Blitz, I assumed X=.75, which *really* looks >bad when you know you need to win 5 rounds (Yes, when we won the 83 WCCC we won >4 and drew 1, and when we won the 86 WCCC we won 4 and *lost* 1) but .75 gives >a really poor chance for winning all 5 rounds. > >You really should have a variable X too, because for the first two-three rounds, >I'd bet DT's X value was almost 1.0, and only starts dropping toward 90% in the >last two rounds after the top of the field has been narrowed down to the best >4-8 programs... I'm not sure how to allow for the possibility of a draw still winning the tournament. I used x^5 equal a won tournament and assumed it would be better than this since a single draw still could be a win. I used 0.9 as a "lower bound" for X. I figured they were better than this against everyone else, especially their early round opponents but I also thought our chances of beating them were much better then 0.10. All of this of course is wild speculation. After Deep Blue beat us in the first round, then in my mind I figured they were VERY likely to win the tournament although I did not do any calculations! I was surprised that we got paired against Deep Thought in the first round. Most of the people at the tournament thought we were the second place favorite, including the Deep Thought team. But the directors noted that parallel programs tend to do poorly historically, and they had to make an educated guess about the likely standings. - Don
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.