Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 10:41:35 01/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2004 at 01:34:59, Robin Smith wrote: >On January 01, 2004 at 21:03:48, Robert Hyatt 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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. >> >>Our laws don't work quite like that. If the original decision was shown to be >>contrary to existing law, things can be corrected higher up the legal chain. > >Our laws DO work like that. Stealing is a criminal offense. Ever hear of double >jeapardy? OJ Simpson? Criminal matters do NOT get corrected higher up. Sorry, but you are wrong. Case to ponder: Person is charged with murder. Makes arrangements to pay judge a bribe to get off. Judge follows thru. trial ends and judge gives a "directed verdict" of "not guilty due to insufficient evidence." Case over? Not at all. The person was _never_ in "jeapardy". And the case gets re-tried. > >>This is a good example of where such judgement is sorely needed. > >Probably. But do we go on forever saying Fritz won the 2003 championship? I will always remember this number just the same as when Roger Maris beat Babe's home run record. But by playing in more games. And that record _forever_ had an "*" by it. This tournament will always be remembered as follows: 2003 WCCC champion: Shredder (*) * Shredder finished in a tie with Fritz due to flagrant rules violations by a program operator playing against Shredder. Shredder then won the play-off games. Had the rules been followed as written, Fritz would have won the event with no playoff required. That is _sad_. > >>I'm not impressed by an argument of "what the TD did is the end of the story, >>period." The TD _does_ have rules and principles to uphold. > >Agreed. But I never said "what the TD did is the end of the story, period." >I just say the TD made a ruling, and whether we like it or not, Shreder IS the >world champion. Just like OJ Simpson is not guilty. By definition. It doesn't >mean I like it. It just means I accept it. I don't even accept it...
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.