Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:08:57 09/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2001 at 10:06:48, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 06, 2001 at 06:31:48, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 06, 2001 at 05:39:22, Geo Disher wrote: >> >>>On September 05, 2001 at 22:43:29, Jay Rinde wrote: >>> >>>>On September 05, 2001 at 22:32:52, Chris Kantack wrote: >>>> >>>>>On September 05, 2001 at 15:24:56, Roy Eassa wrote: >>>>>>I think that was the original point. Common people who make bets DON'T know >>>>>>much about chess. The common conception is that computers are better than >>>>>>humans. So the masses will bet against Kramnik, making the odds favorable for >>>>>>those of us who know better! >>>>> >>>>>I completely agree with what has been stated in this thread. But what if Vegas >>>>>was looking for some kind of "point spread"? That is, what will the final >>>>>match score be? I believe most of us know Kramnik could go undefeated if he >>>>>wanted to. But how will he play this match? Will he keep the score close to >>>>>make it look good? In other words, will Kramnik throw a few games to keep the >>>>>interest level up? I would not be surprised if that was the plan. >>>> >>>>You must be joking!! Yes, you are joking. >>> >>>I don't believe he is joking and I agree that it would be in Kamniks interest >>>not to win all the games if he could. It would appear that this match was much >>>diffrent than the Deep Blue Match if he put all his energy into this and won all >>>the games which I believe he might be able to do. This could jeopardize the >>>interest in another match. Anyway all this being said I would not like to bet >>>on the spread but on win or loss. Kramnik to win. >> >>I believe that if kramnik can win all the games there is no >>reason for him not to do it. >> >>I do not think that there will be no interest in another match >>in the future if kramnik gets 100% >> >>Kasparov also got 100% against Deep thought and later >>there was an interest in another match of kasparov >>against deep blue. >> >>I expect kramnik to win the match but I do not believe that >>he can win all the games when he does not have the exact program. >> >>I think you simply underestimate the machine. >> >>A weaker version that did not use 8 proceesors drew 3-3 with >>GM heubner and I do not believe that >>kramnik can get 100% against huebner. >> >>Uri > >Chess is not necessarily transitive. Nothing says that if A beats B 100% of >the time, and B plays evenly with C 100% of the time, then A will beat C 100% >of the time. Even the Elo calculations don't suggest that. > >I don't think Kramnik will win every game. But not because he can't. Because >the match is set up in such a way that taking any risk should be avoided. I >suspect he is smart enought and wise enough so that he will adopt a match >strategy that attempts to maximize money won without taking undue risks that >could backfire. If he believes that he can win every game then he can try it. I do not see a significant risk because it is enough for him to win more than to lose and a strategy of probability of 90% to win every game means almost 100% chances to win the match The probability of Deep Fritz to draw the match against this strategy is 0.9^4*0.1^4*70<0.5% and kramnik has more than 99% chances to win the match. It is not a significant risk and the fact that kramnik needs to work for less games is enough compensation for it. 90% to win every game means less than 50% to get a 8-0 result and less then 60% to get 5-0 result. Uri
This page took 0.01 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.