Author: Robin Smith
Date: 16:32:02 01/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On December 31, 2003 at 21:27:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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... If there is a trial, and the judge says you didn't steal a million dollars, then you get to keep it, regardless of what the law says. In this case judge = TD. The judge says Shredder won. Shredder keeps the million dollars. Case closed. >><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.