Author: Robin Smith
Date: 22:45:21 01/01/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 01, 2004 at 23:07:12, Mike Byrne wrote: >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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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 Hi Michael, I agree. I am not saying "hey, the rules were followed, there was no injustice and there is no need to fix anything". I DO think it should be fixed. In the future. However, how does a person "fix" the past? The past is ... in the past. It can't be changed. And in the past Shredder was declared the champion. That doesn't mean that I agree this should have happened, only that I acknowledge that it did happen. Sometimes referees make bad calls. Sometimes those bad calls result in a different champion than if they had made a good call. This happens in any sport involving referees. But we don't say football team XYZ didn't really win the super bowl when there is a bad call. Of course they did ... as a result of a bad call. But team XYZ is still the super bowl champion. That is all I said. 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.