Author: Rolf Tueschen
Date: 13:02:33 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 15:47:15, Peter Berger wrote: >On September 27, 2002 at 15:27:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 27, 2002 at 15:18:52, Peter Berger wrote: >> >>>On September 27, 2002 at 15:11:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On September 27, 2002 at 14:58:25, Peter Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 27, 2002 at 14:33:22, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Correction: >>>>>>I meant one and only one of us is right if incredible luck happened. >>>>>>of course in most cases we will discover that both of us wrong. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>Read http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?254769 . I am your friend on >>>>>g5 :). >>>>> >>>>>Peter >>>> >>>>I read it and replied it without the friend. >>>>simulation prove that out of 64000 games >>>>only 2000 are practically played and >>>>I win 1000 out of 2000 by not switching. >>>> >>>>With the friend I get the same and I see no reason to prefer a1 and not g5 if I >>>>know that the host does not choose g5. >>>> >>>>If the host choose random squares the game is >>>>practically the same because all the squares are the same >>>>from the host point of view when he knows nothing about them. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>The right assumption IMHO is not that the friend sits on g5 but that the friend >>>always sits on the other field left the host didn't expose. >>> >>>Peter >> >>We assume that the host does not know the right square. >> >>suppose that the host strategy is not to expose a random square. >> >>62/64 of the games are canceled because the host exposed >>the king >> >>Let look only in 64000 game that the host did not expose g5 >> >>62000 of them are canceled >>I win 1000 of them and the friend win 1000 of them. >> >>The same is for 64000 games when the host did not expose g4. >> >>For every square that the host does not expose I have the same number >>of wins and losses. >> >>Uri > >One last trial - to keep the analogy with the original Monty problem and the >adding of additional doors. > >I think it is just like this: > >1.) You have the first choice -> you take a1 >2.) The host starts opening doors, he opens 62 of them and none has the king (he >is just lucky or he knows, doesn't matter). >3.) Then he adresses me : Which of the 64 fields that don't have Uri on them do >you want to choose -> I choose the one not exposed yet >4.) Then he adresses you: do you want to keep with your square or change to >Peter's? > >There are only two interesting squares left - one of them has the king. But I >think you will agree that yours sucks compaired to mine. > >Peter Let's see, the problem is identic with the Monty Hall case. We have two fields still closed, right? Then we had a 50% chance to open the King either on a1 ot the other field. Period. Rolf Tueschen
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.