Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 19:49:56 12/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 02:14:30, Sandro Necchi 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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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% > >Hi Uri, > >> >>I think that it is too risky to give 0% chances for all the rest when you do not >>know what the programmers did. > >I amde "expectations" made on looking their previous games. > >>How could you know that Deep Sjeng had no chances? >>After the tournament you know but not before it. > >I did not know it. This was my expectation. I am not like R. Hyatt that is >attacking me only because I state my opinion which is different than his. I am >sorry, but that is my opinion. >I may be wrong. >I never said I know everything, he did. You have to do _much_ better than that. 1. Please quote exact text where I claimed to "know everything". Notice I said "quote", not "make up". I'm waiting. 2. Please quote exact text where I "attacked you". Again "quote". I have _never_ attacked you. I simply said "your program did not deserve to win the tournament. You were given a gift by an opponent that violated the rules in force for the event, and that gift put you into a playoff with Fritz." That is _all_ I said. It is not an "attack" of any sort. In fact, it is a pure statement of fact, and I have quoted the rules to back that up. You like to quote non-existent rules such as "the GUI reported the draw, not the engine" or "the GUI didn't claim the draw". Or "the GUI didn't claim the draw according to the rules of FIDE." None of those matter, because the ICGA rules come _first_ and they only resort to FIDE rules _when_ the ICGA rules don't specify something. > >I do not believe him! I really don't care. If you don't "believe me" then you are simply incapable of reading rules and understanding them and the spirit of the WCCC events. >> >>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. > >To me thay had 0%. This was my opinion. Maybe I was wrong, but that's was my >opinion. >Can I have an opinion? > So long as you realize it _is_ just an opinion. You stated it as "fact". You didn't say "in my opinion, they had 0% chance of winning". You just said "they had 0% chances" and that was it. If it is opinion, say so. If it is fact, say so. In my case, it is a _fact_ that shredder should not have won that event. _period_. Provable by the rules used for the event. Opinions notwithstanding. >Sandro >> >>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
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.