Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:03:00 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 02:24:50, Sandro Necchi wrote: >On December 30, 2003 at 01:07:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 29, 2003 at 13:43:18, Uri Blass 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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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% >>> >>>I think that it is too risky to give 0% chances for all the rest when you do not >>>know what the programmers did. >>> >>>How could you know that Deep Sjeng had no chances? >>>After the tournament you know but not before it. >>> >>>Did you know details about other programs like Jonny before the tournament? >>> >>>How could you know that all the single processors are going to lose when you do >>>not know what the programmers did and you cannot be sure that nobody did >>>something clearly better than shredder. >>> >>>You can guess that it is the case based on previous experience but you cannot be >>>sure and I think that it is better to give at least 2% chances for some >>>surprise. >>> >>>I agree that the 5 that you mention were the favourites before the tournament >>>but the chances of other to win should be evaluated as at least 2%. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >>I would not pay a lot of attention to his ramblings. He completely overlooks >>the fact that Shredder had a horrible bug, > >How could I know it? >Since you think you are superior to everybody here...you saw it before the >tournament? Please come to the table with your hat off. We are discussing things _after_ the tournament. I _know_, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that you had a horrible bug. It was exhibited in the Jonny game for _everyone_ to see. If you will still claim that you had a "35% chance of winning" then you are overlooking something _important_. So keep this discussion in context. You might have said "before the event I thought we had a 35% chance of winning, but after the event, and having seen the horrible bug we had, I think our real chances were much lower." So _I_ am looking at everything that is known today. And clearly the bug is now public. >Pls. think before saying things. >This is the first chess lesson! >You have been playing before I started and you did not learn this one? You might follow your own advice. You talk about how shredder played the "best chess there". Which I might not argue against, with _one_ exceptional game against Jonny where it did _not_ play the best chess there. You can play 50 good moves, one blunder, and that game is _not_ going to be remembered for the good, but for the blunder. That is what happened here. > > >>and really did not deserve to win >>this event. "Selective memory" and "selective search" are _not_ the same >>idea. :) > >I know this. Do you think you are the only one to know it? > >> >>The real winner was Fritz. > >OK, so Fritz is the winner because R. Hyatt and few others think this? No. Because the _rules_ say it should have been the winner. Do you not get that _key_ point. This is about the _rules_. That were _not_ followed. > >>Shredder was _given_ the win by improper behavior, >>when a bad programming bug should have knocked it out of the title. If Sandro >>is proud of that kind of title, so be it... > >I am proud of this title as we play some very good games. > >How many WCCC titles did you win? I won 4 and you? I won two, when they were held every 3 years. I won 3 more of the ACM events that were held yearly. So I guess I would say "5" if that is important to the discussion... > >>But then saying that "I" count >>too much on bugs of other programs is a bit of a laugher. > >This was based on the fact that you reacted like a child when I proposed to stop >the games at -10, because you were giving up 0,001 chances to win... I didn't react like a child, so you can take that sanctimonious crap and shove it where appropriate. I said "play on" because programs _do_ have bugs. And, if you would just pay attention for a second or two here and there, you _did_ have a bug that should have cost you the win. You _do_ realize that, right? So your .001 roll of the dice came up in that game. > >Instead of laughing make your program stronger to show me I am wrong. You cannot >win WCCC on words... > >I am wrong on this too? Apparently you are wrong. The just finished event was certainly won on words, and not on rules, so who knows? > >"he" had the worst >>bug that was seen there, as far as I can recall. That wasn't _my_ doing. :) > >It is better to have a bug, but a stronger program, then no bugs, but a weak >program! Very nice argument. From the program's team that won when it should not have, because of "that bug"... > >Sandro
This page took 0.01 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.