Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 12:23:01 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 13:59:22, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. > >Ruy Lopez beats crafty hands down. > >SOS as we can see from your rating list is estimated by you at 2253 this is >wrong it *always* wins from crafty. Just play at fics a match with crafty versus >SOS there and see what happens. > >Now SOS has not a good book yet... > >So based upon your TPR list the crafty rating is 1800. > >So my point is proven. > >If you doubt that crafty is weaker than SOS well just play it online, the book >SOS uses there probably is not much better than at world champs. Which according >to your list is 2235. > >In your case the typical expression is always: The best horseman is on his feet. > >You will never learn. > >Just show up with crafty at a world champ. > >Crafty had the fastest hardware in 2001 and didn't win. Crafty had the fastest >hardware in 2000 (alpha 21264!!) and didn't win. > >It is trivial that in 2003 the level of chessprograms is a lot higher than it >was in 2001. Yet Bob still claims crafty loses from Cray Blitz. > >Cray Blitz we can estimate in easily at 2000 as it made clear tactical blunders, >take the game cray blitz - deep thought. > >Not a single pc program joining world champs 2003 is making those tactical >blunders which crafty made in that game. > >So if Cray Blitz is 2000 rated, then Crafty is 1800 (bob continuesly repeats it >is weaker than cray blitz) so then that is in line with your claim. > >Crafty=1800. Vince , I love you, but Crafty is not 1800 , no way, shape or form, despite any proof that you may come up with. You are back on the "endless" nonsense track that you love to circle around on in your own little world. But that's ok because that is where you are most comfortable When you come back to earth and you want to talk reality, let me know. Otherwise, I'll be right here. love, Michael > >Best regards, >Vincent > > >>love, >> >>Michael
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.