Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:50:07 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 08:29:47, Rolf Tueschen wrote: <snipped> >And I say that she digged not deep enough to the question of what the candidate >could have done at best on the base of _his_ informations. This is not the question that she answered. I do not think that she has to answer a question that she was not asked. <snipped> >Yes. And in such acase who's to blame? The scientist, the expert or the female >IQ genius? I think the answer is clear. All three but not the candidate. Nobody blaimed the candidate. Saying that it is best for the candidate to switch does not mean that not switching is a stupid decision for him. <snipped> >Here we ave two variations, not a single problem. Of course 1/2 is the solution >for the candidate. But in the second variation it's still unclear if the >candidate knew this bad possibility. In that case, if he only guessed that the >host could have such a strategy, he couldn't be sure and therefore it still >remained at 1/2. 1/2 is a gambling, but at least with even chances. :) > >Rolf Tueschen The best strategy of the candidate who does not know the strategy of the host is not clear so 1/2-1/2 is wrong. If he assumes the worse then he can assume that the host opens a door only when the first choice was a car and in this case he has probability of 0 if he switches and 1 if he does not switch. Uri
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.