Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:27:38 12/31/03
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2003 at 13:57:34, Robin Smith wrote: >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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. > Not based on the rules. IE I can steal a million dollars, but I might not get to keep it very long... ><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.