Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:26:13 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 17:16:33, Gerrit Reubold wrote: >On September 27, 2002 at 17:03:35, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 27, 2002 at 16:25:54, Gerrit Reubold wrote: >> >>>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. >> >>I was talking about a new game and not about the old game. >> >>The rules in the new game game is that I win if the king is in a1 and I lose if >>the king is in another square. >> >>I will try to explain more clearly(I will not talk about winning the game but >>about your probability to be right in guessing) >> >>1)P(a1 is the real place of the king)=1/64 in the beginning of the game. > >Agreed. > >> >>2)p(a1 is the real place of the king) is reduced to 0 if the king is exposed in >>another square. > >Agreed, but that doesn't matter, because in the game which I discuss the king is >_not_ exposed. It is only in the game that the other side knows the place of the king. In the game that I discussed the king can be exposed. The game is canceled but the probability to be at a1 is 1/64 before knowing if the game will be canceled so we cannot ignore it. 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.