Author: Robin Smith
Date: 18:03:27 01/02/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2004 at 13:41:35, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. Are you implying someone bribed the WCCC TD? If so then present your evidence and yes, lets re-try the case. If not, then your analogy is bad and my OJ analogy is better. >>>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. The lists I see look like this: George Hall Charley Jones Harry Stovey Ned Williamson Babe Ruth Roger Maris Mark McGwire Barry Bonds No asterisks. No mention of more/less games. No mention of stronger/weaker pitching. No mention of performance enhancing chemicals. Just a list. >This tournament will always be remembered as >follows: > >2003 WCCC champion: Shredder (*) Right. This is all I have been saying. Back to my orriginal point, with hindsight we know that Shredder's "probabity of winning" is 100%. You said that with hindsight we know it is a much smaller number, which is obviously silly. With hindsight the probability must be 100% or 0%. Any number in between is wrong. This is the only point I was making in my first post. Not that how Shredder "won" is fair. Just that it is what it is. >* 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_. Yes. I never said otherwise. >>>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... OK. And you can continue to believe Babe Ruth holds the home run record. Be my guest.
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.