Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:32:54 04/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 2002 at 17:22:14, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On April 10, 2002 at 16:22:18, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On April 09, 2002 at 16:02:47, Roy Eassa wrote: >> >>> >>>Let's see what statements BOTH sides can agree on: >>> >>>1) In most highly open, tactical positions, the strongest computers are usually >>>stronger than even the strongest GMs. >>> >>>2) In many more-closed positions the strongest GMs are stronger than any >>>computers. >>> >>>3) A GM can maximize his chances and thus minimize the computer's chances by >>>avoiding the types of positions in #1 and creating those in #2. THIS IS A SKILL >>>UNTO ITSELF. >> >> >>Here is a cute question: >> >>We are going to play a game where each of us (two player game) has a coin. >>I can show you either a head or a tail, and you do the same to me. We both >>show our coins simultaneously. If we both show heads, you owe me $1. If we >>both show tails, you owe me $3. If we show different (head for me tail for you >>or vice-versa) I pay you $2. >> >>Do you play this game with me? >> >>(Hint: it looks evenly matched but it favors me) > > > me : tail(25%) --> - 1 for me > / > you : tail(50%) -- > / \ > / me : head(25%) --> + 2 for me >--- > \ me : tail(25%) --> + 2 for me > \ / > you : head(50%) -- > \ > me : head(25%) --> - 3 for me > >conclusion : wining expectancy : 0 !!! > >Where's the flaw ??? You assume that the sides choose head and tail with probability 50% and it is not the case. 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.