Author: Robin Smith
Date: 10:57:34 12/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 30, 2003 at 14:03:00, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. Bob, if you are "looking at everything that is known today" then you would have to say that Shredders chance of winning is 100%, even if you disagree with how this came about. <snip> Robin
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.