Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 19:44:08 12/29/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 29, 2003 at 21:49:40, Mike Byrne wrote: >On December 29, 2003 at 15:47:05, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On December 29, 2003 at 13:59:55, Mike Byrne wrote: >> >> >> >>>On December 29, 2003 at 13:23:33, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On December 29, 2003 at 12:46:47, Luis Smith wrote: >>>> >>>>>>I do agree too. >>>>>> >>>>>>Crafty has no realistic chances to win a WCCC. >>>>>> >>>>>>Sandro >>>>> >>>>>IMO only Bob can know this for sure. I think people either over estimate the >>>>>commercials, or underestimate Crafty. After all at the WCCC's only 11 games >>>>>were played, who knows what could have happened in that time, especially with >>>>>the kind of hardware that Dr. Hyatt could get. >>>> >>>>No, Bob does not know this. >>>>He is a "little outdated" on this matter. >>>> >>>>At the 2003 WCCC there were 3 favorites (Shredder, Fritz and Junior), 2 possible >>>>outsiders (Brutus and Diep). >>>> >>>>Based on my experience I gave these chances, before the tournament started: >>>> >>>>Shredder 35% (because of the slower hardware) >>>>Fritz 30% >>>>Junior 25% >>>>Brutus 7% >>>>Diep 3% >>>>rest 0% >>> >>> >>>The rest of the field is never 0%. Any bookie can tell you that. It might be >>>15 to 1, 30 to 1 -- even a 100 to 1 . but the chances are never "zero" - that >>>would make the payoff infinity. >> >>Wrong. > >Vincent, I love you - you have not lost not one iota of ability to doublespeak. > >I'll skip futher down. > > >> >>When Diepeveen (FM) 2300 plays Jonathan Schaeffer in chess at FIDE level (40 in >>2 + 20 in 1 + 15, you are correct that he has a 1% chance to win from me. It >>happens each so many years that i lose from a national master (2000 rated USCF). >>Statistically his chance is higher by the way than in reality. The only 2000 >>rated player i lost from last 6 years a 2 hours game (so not fide rated even, >>only national) was a youth talent who was 2200 rated one rating list later (so >>underrated). >> >>The only reason Jonathan has a chance is because he can play without blundering >>away all pieces and he knows at which spot a piece is best. He has of course >>experience playing titled players in tournament games. >> >>Depending upon whether he has practiced past weeks, Jonathans chances will be >>1.5% or 0.5% practically spoken. This is simply not interesting. There is *some* >>chance. Chance is bigger when i'm feeling a bit sick of course. >> >>We can of course argue a long time about how high the chance is and we will >>never agree i bet. My argument will be he has less than 1% chance because USCF >>is inflated compared to the european ratings of today. >> >>However, >> >>Diepeveen - Eric van Reem (1803 national rated in Netherlands) >> >>That's a 0% chance for Eric. I will be motivated to my bones to beat someone >>like Eric of course. >> >>Now people will go start using statistics that i might blunder once in my life >>at move 7 away a piece or something, or that eric has some trick once in his >>life which he sees and he wins from me. >> >>All possible. >> >>When i claim to never lose, that's just a claim. At a certain level people >>simply give away too little pieces to ever lose from very low rated players. >> >>But still people will tell here: "well perhaps the chance is 0.0001 but it is >>possible that once in your life you blunder away that piece against a 1800 >>rated". >> >>This argumentation is true of course. >> >> VIRTUAL REALITY >> >>But now the reality. I ask the statisticians now: what is the chance that at an >>11 round match, Eric van Reem(taken many pictures from titled players) will beat >>Vincent Diepeveen(FM), perfectly healthy and playing for his life, in a 11 round >>match? >> >>But now let's say that i am not so healthy, despite feeling healthy, and by >>coincidence that week have a virus which kills my possibilities to play well. >> >>I bet statistics will say 0.00000000000000000000001 at most now. >> >> >> REALITY >> >>The real reality is that in a world champs Eric van Reem isn't only playing FM >>Vincent Diepeveen. Reality is that everyone is motivated to win. First round he >>gets GM Alterman, then he gets Omid David Tabibi (didn't play much lately but >>plays very strong 2200+ hands down), then he gets 2343 FIDE rated Johannes >>Zwanzger and that for 11 rounds. >> >>Now the 0.00000000000000000000001 changes in 0 simply. >> >>Imagine next, a 11 round world championship humans. the participant list: >> >>1. Kramnik 2777 (note that his matches vs kasparov and such were never >> counted for FIDE rating, fide has boycotted that. >> Lucky kasparov) >>2. Ponomariov 2718 >>3. Kasparov 2830 >>4. Anand 2766 >>5. Adams 2725 ENG >>5. Svidler 2723 (qualified at internet) >>6. Polgar 2722 >>7. Ivanchuk 2710 >>8. Sokolov, Ivan 2695 NETHERLANDS >>9. Ye, Jiangchuan 2681 >>10.Lautier 2666 FRANCE >>11.Onischuk 2661 USA (highest rated US player who is active) >>12.Van Wely 2654 NETHERLANDS >>13.Seirawan 2621 USA >>14.Bu, Xiangzhi 2606 CHN (Born: 1985-12-10) >>15.Diepeveen 2276 >>16.Hyatt 1800 (local rating, FIDE starts at 2000 for international >> events) >> >>time control 40 in 2. rounds = 11 >> >>If we play 11 rounds you are now claiming that number 15 and 16 have a tiny >>chance to win the world title FIDE? > >No, show me where I claimed that - classic Vincent doublespeak. In the example I >used , somebody has picked the top 5 out of 14 and said the rest of the field >had 0%. To use your example, the rest of the field is with Polgar on down - are >YOU now claiming that 6 through 16 have no shot. It's not 0.0000000000000001%. > >My God, that is biggest nonsense i ever heard! > > >> >>That is the biggest nonsense i ever heard! >> >>The chance is not 0.00000000000000000000000000000001 >>The chance is 0 exactly. >> >>Just like the world champion FIDE 2004 will never be a player rated < 2600 for >>the very same reason. >> >>The only reason bookmakers give 1 to 30, is because they earn more giving 1 to >>30 than when they would give 1 to 100. >> >>>Besides, the tournamnament format , imo, is stupid. An 11 round swiss with 14 >>>or so participants? - they should make a "normal" swiss (say 5 rounds with 14 >>>participants or a round robin - add just 2 more rounds with 14 participants. I >>>forget exactly the number of rounds and participants, but I'm not far off. >>> >>> >>>> >>>>Do you really believe Crafty is better than the average rest? I do not. He would >>>>have to rely on too many bugs on the competition. This is not realistic. >>>> >>>>Of course everybody can say anything different, but in reality this is the >>>>situation. > > >The reality is this -- the performance ratings of WCCC at Graz. The odds are >Crafty would have finished somewehre between List and Brutus according to the >latest SSDF results. Crafty is just about 200 points behind Shredder on equal >hardware on the latest SSDF ratings. Your beloved Diep finished nearly 400 >points behind Shredder in this tournament and would have no shot against Crafty. > That's reality. > >1 Comp Shredder 2734 11 >2 Comp Deep Fritz 2722 11 >3 Comp Deep Junior 2632 10 >4 Comp Brutus 2596 11 >5 Comp List 2485 8 >6 Comp Greenlight Chess 2415 10 >7 Comp Diep 2344 10 >8 Comp Quark 2323 10 >9 Comp Chinito 2321 11 >10 Comp Falcon 2262 10 >11 Comp ParSOS 2253 11 >12 Comp Deep Sjeng 2234 11 >13 Comp Jonny 2228 11 >14 Comp Nexus 2169 11 >15 Comp Hossa 1947 10 >16 Comp Ruy Lopez 1935 10 > >note _ calculation was based on actual games played - no forfeit wins - another >loving dose of reality. > >love, > >Michael I forgot to mention - the ratings above were derived using the Fritz rating tool - I made no effort to calibrate them to anything else - they are only good relative ratings to each other --- not to SSDF, USCF, FIDE etc. It 's the delta between the programs that may be useful, the absolute values mean nothing in this context.
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.