Author: Mike Byrne
Date: 20:07:12 01/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2004 at 19:32:02, Robin Smith wrote: >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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. > Robin, My comments below are to everyone and represent my feelings in general and you (and everyone else) should not take them on a personal level. It is more like "my last statement" to anybody who wants to read them. I think this case is closed and we should move on - but we should move forward with the idea that something should be looked at here to avoid a repeat. The argument that says "hey, the rules were followed , there was no injustice and there is no need to fix anything" is incredulous - but that, in essense, is what they are saying and that is the sad part. Clearly the "spirit of competition" was violated here. Best, Michael >>><snip> >>> >>>Robin
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.