Author: Gerrit Reubold
Date: 14:46:38 09/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 27, 2002 at 17:26:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Finally we agree :-) However, its sad that we waste our time discussing different games. In _my_ game the host (by knowing or by chance) did not expose the position of the king. We should learn: always define the point we are discussing, otherwise we waste our time with defending/attacking point of views which were not discussed at all. 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.