Author: Gerrit Reubold
Date: 13:25:54 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 16:14:08, Uri Blass 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). > >It is important. > >>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 > >If the king was not exposed by luck then I do not agree. > >Last try to explain: >Let suppose he does not know where is the king. > >Let suppose that I am not allowed to change my choice and I win only if I chose >the king. >My chances are 1/64 to be right. Agreed. > >1)Do you agree that if he expose the king when he expose 62 squares then it is >bad luck for me and I lost the game? No. The game is canceled in this case. We assume the king is not exposed. > >2)Do you agree that it means that if he did not expose the king that it is good >luck for me and the probability that my guess was correct increased? No. Your odds are still 1/64. > >3)Do you agree that it means that my probability is more than 1/64 after he >exposed no king? No, when you stick to yóur initial choice. > >I say that it is 1/2 after exposing 62 squares. > >Uri 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.