Author: Robin Smith
Date: 00:42:07 01/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2004 at 23:34:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On January 02, 2004 at 21:03:27, Robin Smith wrote: > >>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He is a "little outdated" on this matter.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. > >Not at all. The point is that if the judge has his mind made up before >the trial, and legal rules are not followed, and the defendent is found >innocent, he _can_ be retried again. The OJ trial was about incompetent >police investigators and prosecutors, not the judge. Do you believe the TD made up his mind before the tournament? Do you believe the TD was intentionally and consciously biased in favor of Shredder? If not, then your analogy is still bad. Bad calls happen all the time in sports. Sometimes they can change which person/team becomes champion. This is nothing new in sport. Nor does it change who is considered the champion. Chess is no different. Shredder became WC because of a bad call. People make mistakes. Nothing earth shattering about that. >>>>>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. > >Sorry, but look at the officla baseball records. I did. Today. Did you? There is no asterisk. But I'll believe you when you say there once was. What difference that makes, I don't know. >Maris _always_ had an >asterisk by his name. It was dictated by the baseball comish, after a lot >of pressure from "babe" fans. And it was mentioned all the time in the hunt >for the new record by Big Mac and then Bonds. Maris probably does not have >the asterisk any longer since he is no longer #1... > >> >>>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. > >No Shredder's "probabibility" was not 100%. I am not talking about _was_. I am talking about _is_. It doesn't make sense to talk about "probability" using "hindsight", yet that is exactly what you were doing and what I was objecting to. Probability is about possible future events, not about ones that have already occurred, yet you talk about the "probability" of a past event, where you take into account some of the initial conditions that were not known before the event (Shredder had a bug) but not other initial conditions (the TD had a bug). This is silly. And it is the only area where we seem to disagree. If I roll a pair of dice, and I get a 7, then the probability of getting a 7, given the exact conditions of that roll, is 100%, not 16.7%. We _know_ what happened = probability of 100%. >Because Shredder's win came >_outside_ the rules, and outside the laws of probability, since probability >had nothing to do with its final standing. Right. My point exactly. You can't look back on an event that has already taken place and assign a probability of less than 100% (unless it is 0%). Doesn't make sense. This is what prompted my first post in this thread. It is the _only_ point I was making, and at the time I thought it was funny, because it is so _obviously_ true. Now if you wanted to talk about what would happen if we were to hold a tournament in the _future_, with the buggy Shredder and without the buggy TD, then we can talk probability. >It ended up there due to human error compounded by human error. Yes. But that has _nothing_ to do with my orriginal point. You keep arguing about who _should_ be WC. But I have _never_ been disputing this point. >>>* 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. > >For fewer than 160 games, I could believe it _and_ be correct, of course, when >comparing him to Roger Maris. Sure. You go ahead and produce a list of home run records for less than 160 games. Sounds like a boring list to me, but I'm not big on baseball. You have fun with it. >Howver, nothing says that we should "accept" unjust decisions. I guess it depends on what your definition of accept is. Sounds like you already accept it, as long as there is an asterisk. I would be very happy with a list that has an asterisk as well. And I'll bet in 5 years you won't see many asterisks on any lists of WCCC champions, regardless of what you or I might want. Babe's asterisk is already gone, and if Shredder even gets one at all I doubt it will last long either. At some point the emotions die down and we are left with lists without asterisks.
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.