Author: Gerrit Reubold
Date: 13:07:57 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 16:02:33, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >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 It's not that easy. There are two squares, yes. But the do not have the same odds. I think we are going in circles and I consider to quit the discussion. If we would start with defining(!) the game, we would surely (we all are educated in maths etc., aren't we?) soon agree on the solution. Greetings, Gerrit
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.