Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 16:18:24 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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. We _never_ ran on a 21264. I really don't know why I would even waste the time correcting your continual wildly inaccurate nonsense. However, if you look _hard_ you will find that we ran on a 21164, and we were _not_ the fastest alphas there, even. The Kryotech machines were significantly faster. Please get your facts right at least _once_ in a while. We didn't have the fastest hardware in _either_ of those events... Not by a long shot... > >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. Guess from ICC experience that should mean Diep <= 1600. You are killing yourself... > >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.