Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:40:47 09/06/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 06, 2001 at 12:49:57, Mark Young wrote: >On September 06, 2001 at 11:45:32, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 06, 2001 at 11:08:57, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>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 >> >>New game. I am going to pull the pin on 6 hand grenades, one at a time, and >>toss them to you. If you catch one, you "win". If you get blown up, you >>"lose". >> >>My strategy will be to _not_ try to catch all 6. I am going to watch you >>very carefully and notice how quick you pull the pin and toss the grenade. >>I am going to pick the one where you move the quickest, giving me the best >>chance to catch it before it explodes, and still leave time to toss it safely >>away after I catch it. After I catch _one_ I am going to run like hell and >>ignore the rest. I have already won the match. >> >>I think any smart player will play the match just like that. Based on the >>current prize rules, I probably would just forfeit all games and take home a >>small fortune to retire on, anyway. But to be a bit smarter, I would really >>try to draw game after game, safely, unless my opponent makes a positional >>blunder that I believe I can exploit without much risk of losing. I will try >>to win that game, then go back to drawing, which will win the match and the >>$1M. >> >> >> >> >>> >>>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 >> >>I don't know that I buy the 90% probability first. The real question is >>what is the probability that the human will make a result-altering mistake in >>a game and lose a game that should have been drawn or won? It is not zero. >>The more complicated the game is, the greater that probability becomes. I >>believe he will try to keep the probability very low by playing safe chess >>waiting on (a) a mistake or (b) the end of the match giving him a huge cash >>bundle no matter what happens. > >I agree, I think GM Kramnik will have no trouble beating Fritz 7. I do think he >will try and win one game regardless, then coast if he can. > >I do think Deep Blue is stronger then Fritz 7 dispite what GM Kramnik and other >say here and else where. I think that seeing positions when Deeper blue is faster than Deep Fritz in seeing the same main line can be more convincing. We have all the logfiles of deeper blue. If I cannot find significant number of cases when deeper blue is faster than Deep Fritz in finding the right move then I am afraid that I am not going to change my mind. 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.