PDA

View Full Version : predictions for each game in the championship section



Garvinator
03-01-2004, 10:41 PM
this is a thought, how about each person gives their predictions for the rounds as they appear on the website.

therefore each persons prediction for round 6.

PHAT
03-01-2004, 10:59 PM
Lets make it interesting.

We all put in $1 and predictions for all 15 games. The most correct wins all the money in the pot , share thereof.

We repeat it every round. I voluteer to keep the book.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:03 PM
Lets make it interesting.

We all put in $1 and predictions for all 15 games. The most correct wins all the money in the pot , share thereof.

We repeat it every round. I voluteer to keep the book.

ahem....since you do not know the identity of all BB posters, how are you going to collect the money? :?

chesslover
04-01-2004, 02:05 PM
why not have a poll on who will the ACC, under this thread?

I still say Rogers, a;though Lane is now looking good too

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:05 PM
I wouldn't trust sweeney with 2 cents of mine.

PHAT
04-01-2004, 02:07 PM
I wouldn't trust sweeney with 2 cents of mine.That's 'because you ain't got no sense.

skip to my lou
04-01-2004, 02:08 PM
No, it's because I dont trust you.

peanbrain
04-01-2004, 02:23 PM
I wouldn't trust sweeney with 2 cents of mine.That's 'because you ain't got no sense.

haha, classic!! :D

chesslover
04-01-2004, 04:51 PM
No, it's because I dont trust you.

very apt indeed :D :D

Garvinator
04-01-2004, 08:59 PM
1 Chapman 2349 [4.5] : Lane,2420 [4.5] draw
2 Solomon 2400 [4.5] : Levi2269 [4.5] 1-0
3 Zhao 2398 [4] : Rogers 2574 [4] draw
4 Tao 2390 [4] : Johansen,2499 [4] 0-1
5 Bjelobrk 2338 [3.5] : Canfell2279 [3.5] 0-1
6 Rej 2242 [3.5] : Yu,2265 [3.5] draw
7 Smerdon 2427 [3] : Blazkova2266 [3] 1-0
8 Reilly 2297 [3] : Depasquale2327 [3] draw
9 Charles 2171 [3] : Boyd,2253 [3] 0-1
10 Wright 2149 [2.5] : Tan2250 [2.5] draw
11 Xie 2238 [2.5] : Booth,2177 [2.5] 1-0
12 Eriksson 2096 [2] : Barber2287 [2] 0-1
13 Jones 2176 [2] : Hacche2206 [2] 1-0
14 Jovanovic 2068 [2] : Thaw2204 [2] 0-1
15 Haasse 2179 [1.5] : Szuveges[.5] 1-0

There are my predictions, anyone else want to give theirs

chesslover
04-01-2004, 10:44 PM
1 Chapman 2349 [4.5] : Lane,2420 [4.5] draw
2 Solomon 2400 [4.5] : Levi2269 [4.5] 1-0
3 Zhao 2398 [4] : Rogers 2574 [4] draw
4 Tao 2390 [4] : Johansen,2499 [4] 0-1
5 Bjelobrk 2338 [3.5] : Canfell2279 [3.5] 0-1
6 Rej 2242 [3.5] : Yu,2265 [3.5] draw
7 Smerdon 2427 [3] : Blazkova2266 [3] 1-0
8 Reilly 2297 [3] : Depasquale2327 [3] draw
9 Charles 2171 [3] : Boyd,2253 [3] 0-1
10 Wright 2149 [2.5] : Tan2250 [2.5] draw
11 Xie 2238 [2.5] : Booth,2177 [2.5] 1-0
12 Eriksson 2096 [2] : Barber2287 [2] 0-1
13 Jones 2176 [2] : Hacche2206 [2] 1-0
14 Jovanovic 2068 [2] : Thaw2204 [2] 0-1
15 Haasse 2179 [1.5] : Szuveges[.5] 1-0

There are my predictions, anyone else want to give theirs

rather than go through all 15 boards in the title event, assome will just bne guesses, let me join you in making the predictions - but only for the top boards

1. Lane to beat an over achieving Chapman
2. Solomon to beat Levi
3. Rogers to bounce back and beat Zhao
4. Johansen to beat local boy Tao, showing us all why he is a GM
5. Canfell to beat Bjelbork

As for overall winner, Rogers shock shock shock :shock: loss to Chapman and lane's loss, has thrown the entire field open. Solomon, and Johansen are back in contention as are anyone with at least 3 points in this sensational tournament.

I however think Rogers will win, due to his professionalism and meticulous preperation. My reserve pick was lane, but after his loss, I think SOlomon is my reserve pick

Garvinator
04-01-2004, 10:51 PM
i think smerdon cannot be discounted, having had a poor start. he cant keep losing.

chesslover
04-01-2004, 11:02 PM
i think smerdon cannot be discounted, having had a poor start. he cant keep losing.

anything si possible, but given that Lane and Solomon ha 1.5 start over Smerdon, and that the 2 GMs have a point start, I still think that these 4 have a far better chance than Smeardon

Who is your pick as winner, and the reserve pick in case your number 1 pick fails?

jenni
04-01-2004, 11:04 PM
1 Chapman 2349 [4.5] : Lane,2420 [4.5] draw
2 Solomon 2400 [4.5] : Levi2269 [4.5] 1-0
3 Zhao 2398 [4] : Rogers 2574 [4] draw
4 Tao 2390 [4] : Johansen,2499 [4] 0-1
5 Bjelobrk 2338 [3.5] : Canfell2279 [3.5] 0-1
6 Rej 2242 [3.5] : Yu,2265 [3.5] draw
7 Smerdon 2427 [3] : Blazkova2266 [3] 1-0
8 Reilly 2297 [3] : Depasquale2327 [3] draw
9 Charles 2171 [3] : Boyd,2253 [3] 0-1
10 Wright 2149 [2.5] : Tan2250 [2.5] draw
11 Xie 2238 [2.5] : Booth,2177 [2.5] 1-0
12 Eriksson 2096 [2] : Barber2287 [2] 0-1
13 Jones 2176 [2] : Hacche2206 [2] 1-0
14 Jovanovic 2068 [2] : Thaw2204 [2] 0-1
15 Haasse 2179 [1.5] : Szuveges[.5] 1-0

There are my predictions, anyone else want to give theirs
1 Chapman 2349 [4.5] : Lane,2420 [4.5] 0-1
2 Solomon 2400 [4.5] : Levi2269 [4.5] 1-0
3 Zhao 2398 [4] : Rogers 2574 [4] 0-1
4 Tao 2390 [4] : Johansen,2499 [4] 0-1
5 Bjelobrk 2338 [3.5] : Canfell2279 [3.5] draw
6 Rej 2242 [3.5] : Yu,2265 [3.5] draw
7 Smerdon 2427 [3] : Blazkova2266 [3] 1-0
8 Reilly 2297 [3] : Depasquale2327 [3] draw
9 Charles 2171 [3] : Boyd,2253 [3] 0-1
10 Wright 2149 [2.5] : Tan2250 [2.5] 0-1
11 Xie 2238 [2.5] : Booth,2177 [2.5] 1-0
12 Eriksson 2096 [2] : Barber2287 [2] draw
13 Jones 2176 [2] : Hacche2206 [2] 1-0
14 Jovanovic 2068 [2] : Thaw2204 [2] draw
15 Haasse 2179 [1.5] : Szuveges[.5] 1-0

chesslover
04-01-2004, 11:12 PM
1 Chapman 2349 [4.5] : Lane,2420 [4.5] draw
2 Solomon 2400 [4.5] : Levi2269 [4.5] 1-0
3 Zhao 2398 [4] : Rogers 2574 [4] draw
4 Tao 2390 [4] : Johansen,2499 [4] 0-1
5 Bjelobrk 2338 [3.5] : Canfell2279 [3.5] 0-1
6 Rej 2242 [3.5] : Yu,2265 [3.5] draw
7 Smerdon 2427 [3] : Blazkova2266 [3] 1-0
8 Reilly 2297 [3] : Depasquale2327 [3] draw
9 Charles 2171 [3] : Boyd,2253 [3] 0-1
10 Wright 2149 [2.5] : Tan2250 [2.5] draw
11 Xie 2238 [2.5] : Booth,2177 [2.5] 1-0
12 Eriksson 2096 [2] : Barber2287 [2] 0-1
13 Jones 2176 [2] : Hacche2206 [2] 1-0
14 Jovanovic 2068 [2] : Thaw2204 [2] 0-1
15 Haasse 2179 [1.5] : Szuveges[.5] 1-0

There are my predictions, anyone else want to give theirs
1 Chapman 2349 [4.5] : Lane,2420 [4.5] 0-1
2 Solomon 2400 [4.5] : Levi2269 [4.5] 1-0
3 Zhao 2398 [4] : Rogers 2574 [4] 0-1
4 Tao 2390 [4] : Johansen,2499 [4] 0-1
5 Bjelobrk 2338 [3.5] : Canfell2279 [3.5] draw
6 Rej 2242 [3.5] : Yu,2265 [3.5] draw
7 Smerdon 2427 [3] : Blazkova2266 [3] 1-0
8 Reilly 2297 [3] : Depasquale2327 [3] draw
9 Charles 2171 [3] : Boyd,2253 [3] 0-1
10 Wright 2149 [2.5] : Tan2250 [2.5] 0-1
11 Xie 2238 [2.5] : Booth,2177 [2.5] 1-0
12 Eriksson 2096 [2] : Barber2287 [2] draw
13 Jones 2176 [2] : Hacche2206 [2] 1-0
14 Jovanovic 2068 [2] : Thaw2204 [2] draw
15 Haasse 2179 [1.5] : Szuveges[.5] 1-0

I agree with all your top 5 board pcik except for canfell :)

And your main and reserve pick for the overall winner of the championships?

jenni
05-01-2004, 09:01 AM
And your main and reserve pick for the overall winner of the championships?

I still think Ian can bounce back to win, especially with Gary losing and drawing games he was winning. Gary is my reserve pick - I don't think Solomon can hold it together and David S seems to be really out of form. Normally I would be backing Yuan, but I think he needs a bit of time, after 2 years away from chess while studying.

I'd have to say I don't think anyone is showing fantastic form, so it does leave it all wide open and makes it very exciting!

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 10:05 AM
When all is said and done both GM's really are not out of this yet.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 11:32 AM
$10 says I pick more correct results than you. Any takers among you mouthy bastards.

1 Chapman 2349 [4.5] : Lane,2420 [4.5] 0-1
2 Solomon 2400 [4.5] : Levi2269 [4.5] 1-0
3 Zhao 2398 [4] : Rogers 2574 [4] 0-1
4 Tao 2390 [4] : Johansen,2499 [4] 0-1
5 Bjelobrk 2338 [3.5] : Canfell2279 [3.5] 1-0
6 Rej 2242 [3.5] : Yu,2265 [3.5] 0-1
7 Smerdon 2427 [3] : Blazkova2266 [3] 1-0
8 Reilly 2297 [3] : Depasquale2327 [3] 0-1
9 Charles 2171 [3] : Boyd,2253 [3] 0-1
10 Wright 2149 [2.5] : Tan2250 [2.5] 0-1
11 Xie 2238 [2.5] : Booth,2177 [2.5] 1-0
12 Eriksson 2096 [2] : Barber2287 [2] 0-1
13 Jones 2176 [2] : Hacche2206 [2] 0-1
14 Jovanovic 2068 [2] : Thaw2204 [2] 0-1
15 Haasse 2179 [1.5] : Szuveges[.5] 1-0

jenni
05-01-2004, 11:42 AM
$10 says I pick more correct results than you. Any takers among you mouthy bastards.



I'll take you on. :D

Garvinator
05-01-2004, 11:44 AM
im in.

Rincewind
05-01-2004, 02:36 PM
Matt,

For a one time critic of the rating system you now seem to think it is a very accurate predictor of performance. ;)

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2004, 02:48 PM
Yes, Matt's predicted wins on every board, presumably feeling that so many games have results that picking wins on rating is more likely to work than trying to pick the draws. Interesting strategy. He's one down to Jenni at the moment as Canfell and Bjelobrk drew.

Just as well you all backed Solo to win, Levi has had a great tournament so far but that was an absolute hiding.

I have boards 1 and 4 up on screen now - couldn't get board 3 to work and couldn't get Play Chess to work (never got past "Connecting") - had to type in the board numbers into the URLs manually to get the rest. Board 2 of course was already over.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 05:20 PM
So much for Matt's predicitions.
7 of the 15 are drawn at this stage with 4 still in progress. Also Jones beat Haache.

Amazing how Rogers saved that game against Zhao.

38. Bd6 by Zhao instead of 38. Bb4 and White should win.

Kevin Bonham
05-01-2004, 06:08 PM
Is that game over now and drawn? If that's so that makes 8 draws, which leaves Matt on 3/12 vs Garvin and Jenni both 7/12.

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 06:17 PM
Also Chapman - Lane was drawn.

There is currently 9 draws.

Results of Reilly- Depas, and Eriksson- Barber are the only ones outstanding.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 06:32 PM
OK Jenni, G''',

I've written two cheques for $10 where do I send them. :(


(Where did all those draws come from ???????? :evil: ](*,) )

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 06:43 PM
If you had looked at the draws in the first 6 rounds you would have seen the following:

R1 - 4 draws
R2 - 10 draws
R3 - 4 draws
R4 - 4 Draws
R5 - 5 draws
R6 - 2 draws

As such 4-5 draws was likely but 9 not unreasonable.

Also the ratings are their FIDE ratings.
I personally would use their ACF ratings.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 07:05 PM
But of the non-draw results, I picked 5/6. Had there been 3 or 4 draws which is what I was reckoning on, a pick rate of 5/6 is 10/12. \:D/

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 07:16 PM
Godd to see you maths/probabilty skills are as strong as ever.

A pick rate of 5/6 is 5/6 not 10/12.

The other 5 results could have gone against you and you would have had 6/12.

jenni
05-01-2004, 07:47 PM
OK Jenni, G''',

I've written two cheques for $10 where do I send them. :(


(Where did all those draws come from ???????? :evil: ](*,) )

I must admit I'm not a wild fan of draws, however they are a fact of life!

I don't want the money Matt - if you feel morally obliged, then give it towards Junior activities at your local club. :)

chesslover
05-01-2004, 08:10 PM
And your main and reserve pick for the overall winner of the championships?

I still think Ian can bounce back to win, especially with Gary losing and drawing games he was winning. Gary is my reserve pick - I don't think Solomon can hold it together and David S seems to be really out of form. Normally I would be backing Yuan, but I think he needs a bit of time, after 2 years away from chess while studying.

I'd have to say I don't think anyone is showing fantastic form, so it does leave it all wide open and makes it very exciting!

what a wide open and exciting tournament this has turned out to be

SOlomon leading by half a point from Lane/Chapman and one point from the 2 GMs and Levi/Zhao/ Tao

and just 4 rounds to go, and it is still wide open

chesslover
05-01-2004, 08:14 PM
OK Jenni, G''',

I've written two cheques for $10 where do I send them. :(


(Where did all those draws come from ???????? :evil: ](*,) )

I must admit I'm not a wild fan of draws, however they are a fact of life!

I don't want the money Matt - if you feel morally obliged, then give it towards Junior activities at your local club. :)
a bet is a bet, and Matt should pay up :)

Jenni, you should ask Matt to send you the receipt to you showing that he paid it to the NSWJCL or junior activities at his club ;)

Garvinator
05-01-2004, 08:59 PM
id prefer double or nothing on the next round :D

PHAT
05-01-2004, 10:21 PM
OK Jenni, G''',

I've written two cheques for $10 where do I send them. :(


(Where did all those draws come from ???????? :evil: ](*,) )

I must admit I'm not a wild fan of draws, however they are a fact of life!

I don't want the money Matt - if you feel morally obliged, then give it towards Junior activities at your local club. :)

No no. A bet is a bet. It can/will go to your ACTJCL. Who knows, it might be the begining of a whole new revenue source. :rolleyes:

PHAT
05-01-2004, 10:27 PM
Godd to see you maths/probabilty skills are as strong as ever.

A pick rate of 5/6 is 5/6 not 10/12.

The other 5 results could have gone against you and you would have had 6/12.



A 5/6 chance = 10/12.
Go back to primary school.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 10:34 PM
id prefer double or nothing on the next round :D

Hey, if we keep playing double or nothing I eventually get square. OK, your on for one more round, Any more and it might start hurting. :shock:

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 10:42 PM
Godd to see you maths/probabilty skills are as strong as ever.

A pick rate of 5/6 is 5/6 not 10/12.

The other 5 results could have gone against you and you would have had 6/12.



A 5/6 chance = 10/12.
Go back to primary school.
You moron.

The percentage is the same but thats all.
There were 15 games in total.
You had 5/6.
You implied that if there had only been a few draws on stead of the 9 that actually happened you would have gotten 10/12.

However as I pointed out those last 5/6 could all have gone against you.

Therefore you would have had 6/12.

jenni
05-01-2004, 11:10 PM
id prefer double or nothing on the next round :D

Hey, if we keep playing double or nothing I eventually get square. OK, your on for one more round, Any more and it might start hurting. :shock:

OK Matt - I'll go double or nothing tomorrow as well - don't want to be a bad sport! Tony and the kids are going to kill me - they think this is seriously disreputable. :oops:

1 Rogers, Ian Solomon, Stephen J 1 - 0
2 Lane, Gary W Johansen, Darryl K draw
3 Zhao, Zong-Yuan Chapman, Mark draw
4 Yu, Ronald Tao, Trevor SA draw
5 Levi, Eddy L Smerdon, David C 0 - 1
6 Depasquale, Chris Bjelobrk, Igor draw
7 Boyd, Tristan Canfell, Gregory J 0 - 1
8 Rej, Tomek Charles, Gareth 1 - 0
9 Barber, Haydn J Xie, George 0 - 1
10 Jones, Brian A Reilly, Tim 0 - 1
11 Tan, Justin Blazkova, Petra draw
12 Wright, Neil S Jovanovic, Peter draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin Booth, Stewart draw
14 Hacche, David J Haasse, Adam 1 - 0
15 Szuveges, Narelle Eriksson, Ingela 0 - 1

Garvinator
05-01-2004, 11:18 PM
id prefer double or nothing on the next round :D

Hey, if we keep playing double or nothing I eventually get square. OK, your on for one more round, Any more and it might start hurting. :shock:
I dont expect you to lose anything, that is why i said double or nothing.

PHAT
05-01-2004, 11:19 PM
A 5/6 chance = 10/12.
Go back to primary school.
You moron.

The percentage is the same but thats all.
Tthere were 15 games in total.
You had 5/6.
You implied that if there had only been a few draws you would have gotten 10/12.

However as I pointed out those last 5/6 could all have gone against you.

Therefore you would have had 6/12.

"...could have gone against me... " Gee wizz, it might , it might not. But let's look at the probabilty


I will let you in on a little secrete, Einstien. If a non-random event is observed to be positive in 5/6 tests, the most probable score for the next six tests is [drum roll] waaaaaaaait for it 5/6 folks. The sum of all tests would most likely be [drum roll] waaaaaaaait for it 10/12 folks


Now bugger off back to primary school.

(Probability of BG replying to this post is 1.00.)

Garvinator
05-01-2004, 11:25 PM
1 Rogers, Ian Solomon, Stephen J 1 - 0
2 Lane, Gary W Johansen, Darryl K draw
3 Zhao, Zong-Yuan Chapman, Mark draw
4 Yu, Ronald Tao, Trevor SA draw
5 Levi, Eddy L Smerdon, David C 0 - 1
6 Depasquale, Chris Bjelobrk, Igor draw
7 Boyd, Tristan Canfell, Gregory J 0 - 1
8 Rej, Tomek Charles, Gareth 1 - 0
9 Barber, Haydn J Xie, George 0 - 1
10 Jones, Brian A Reilly, Tim 0 - 1
11 Tan, Justin Blazkova, Petra draw
12 Wright, Neil S Jovanovic, Peter draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin Booth, Stewart draw
14 Hacche, David J Haasse, Adam 1 - 0
15 Szuveges, Narelle Eriksson, Ingela 0 - 1

my choices-

1 Rogers, Ian Solomon, Stephen J 1-0
2 Lane, Gary W Johansen, Darryl K 0-1
3 Zhao, Zong-Yuan Chapman, Mark 1-0
4 Yu, Ronald Tao, Trevor draw
5 Levi, Eddy L Smerdon, David C 0-1
6 Depasquale, Chris Bjelobrk, Igor draw
7 Boyd, Tristan Canfell, Gregory J 0-1
8 Rej, Tomek Charles, Gareth 1-0
9 Barber, Haydn J Xie, George draw
10 Jones, Brian A Reilly, Tim draw
11 Tan, Justin Blazkova, Petra 0-1 :(
12 Wright, Neil S Jovanovic, Peter draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin Booth, Stewart draw
14 Hacche, David J Haasse, Adam 0-1
15 Szuveges, Narelle Eriksson, Ingela draw

Bill Gletsos
05-01-2004, 11:28 PM
A 5/6 chance = 10/12.
Go back to primary school.
You moron.

The percentage is the same but thats all.
Tthere were 15 games in total.
You had 5/6.
You implied that if there had only been a few draws you would have gotten 10/12.

However as I pointed out those last 5/6 could all have gone against you.

Therefore you would have had 6/12.

"...could have gone against me... " Gee wizz, it might , it might not. But let's look at the probabilty


I will let you in on a little secrete, Einstien. If a non-random event is observed to be positive in 5/6 tests, the most probable score for the next six tests is [drum roll] waaaaaaaait for it 5/6 folks. The sum of all tests would most likely be [drum roll] waaaaaaaait for it 10/12 folks


Now bugger off back to primary school.

(Probability of BG replying to this post is 1.00.)

But dipstick you simply based your guesses on their FIDE ratings. In fact you assumed the higher rated player would always win.

Your logic is flawed. Your sample size is too small.

Each event is unrelated to any of the other events.

Just because the first 6 were 5/6 does not mean the next 6 will likely be 5/6

PHAT
06-01-2004, 10:34 AM
But dipstick you simply based your guesses on their FIDE ratings. In fact you assumed the higher rated player would always win.

Your logic is flawed. Your sample size is too small.

Each event is unrelated to any of the other events.

Just because the first 6 were 5/6 does not mean the next 6 will likely be 5/6

Listen, you fool.
1. It does not matter at what rating is used
2. it Does not matter what way I use the form guide
3. It does not matter haow small the sample is

4. the logical 100% correct

5. Unrealated events are good - it's called independant selection. That, Billdo is, is why simple ratios can work here.

6. The most likely score after 5/6 is 5/6. Ask Jeo's dog - even it will have a better understanding of probability than you.

PHAT
06-01-2004, 11:02 AM
1 Rogers, Ian Solomon, Stephen J 1 - 0
2 Lane, Gary W Johansen, Darryl K draw
3 Zhao, Zong-Yuan Chapman, Mark draw
4 Yu, Ronald Tao, Trevor SA draw
5 Levi, Eddy L Smerdon, David C 0 - 1
6 Depasquale, Chris Bjelobrk, Igor draw
7 Boyd, Tristan Canfell, Gregory J 0 - 1
8 Rej, Tomek Charles, Gareth 1 - 0
9 Barber, Haydn J Xie, George 0 - 1
10 Jones, Brian A Reilly, Tim 0 - 1
11 Tan, Justin Blazkova, Petra draw
12 Wright, Neil S Jovanovic, Peter draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin Booth, Stewart draw
14 Hacche, David J Haasse, Adam 1 - 0
15 Szuveges, Narelle Eriksson, Ingela 0 - 1

my choices-

1 Rogers, Ian Solomon, Stephen J 1-0
2 Lane, Gary W Johansen, Darryl K 0-1
3 Zhao, Zong-Yuan Chapman, Mark 1-0
4 Yu, Ronald Tao, Trevor draw
5 Levi, Eddy L Smerdon, David C 0-1
6 Depasquale, Chris Bjelobrk, Igor draw
7 Boyd, Tristan Canfell, Gregory J 0-1
8 Rej, Tomek Charles, Gareth 1-0
9 Barber, Haydn J Xie, George draw
10 Jones, Brian A Reilly, Tim draw
11 Tan, Justin Blazkova, Petra 0-1 :(
12 Wright, Neil S Jovanovic, Peter draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin Booth, Stewart draw
14 Hacche, David J Haasse, Adam 0-1
15 Szuveges, Narelle Eriksson, Ingela draw

Now for the correct predictions:

1 Rogers, Ian Solomon, Stephen J 1-0
2 Lane, Gary W Johansen, Darryl K 0-1
3 Zhao, Zong-Yuan Chapman, Mark 1-0
4 Yu, Ronald Tao, Trevor Draw
5 Levi, Eddy L Smerdon, David C 0-1
6 Depasquale, Chris Bjelobrk, Igor Draw
7 Boyd, Tristan Canfell, Gregory J 0-1
8 Rej, Tomek Charles, Gareth 1-0
9 Barber, Haydn J Xie, George 0-1
10 Jones, Brian A Reilly, Tim 0-1
11 Tan, Justin Blazkova, Petra 1-0
12 Wright, Neil S Jovanovic, Peter Draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin Booth, Stewart Draw
14 Hacche, David J Haasse, Adam Draw
15 Szuveges, Narelle Eriksson, Ingela 0-1

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 11:03 AM
But dipstick you simply based your guesses on their FIDE ratings. In fact you assumed the higher rated player would always win.

Your logic is flawed. Your sample size is too small.

Each event is unrelated to any of the other events.

Just because the first 6 were 5/6 does not mean the next 6 will likely be 5/6

Listen, you fool.
1. It does not matter at what rating is used
2. it Does not matter what way I use the form guide
3. It does not matter haow small the sample is

4. the logical 100% correct

5. Unrealated events are good - it's called independant selection. That, Billdo is, is why simple ratios can work here.

6. The most likely score after 5/6 is 5/6. Ask Jeo's dog - even it will have a better understanding of probability than you.
All I can say is you are a moron.
And saying "3. It does not matter haow small the sample is" is utterly stupid.

Continue being a cretin and live in ignorance.

PHAT
06-01-2004, 11:44 AM
All I can say is you are a moron.
And saying "3. It does not matter haow small the sample is" is utterly stupid.

Continue being a cretin and live in ignorance.

This is the penultimate post I will make on this subject. The last post will be to tell you if you are correct or not.

Question:
A bag contains an unknown number of marbles >1.
Each marble is either black or white.
You draw out one marble, it is white and you put it in your pocket.
What colour is most likely to be pulled out in the next draw, and why?

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 11:58 AM
I'm not going to play your little game.

I will however make this obeservation.

Your question re marbles is unrelated.

Pulling marbles from a bag is random.

You said the chess games results were non random.

Now I didnt take you to task on that statement, but I could.

If a game finishes, then a game by others may be affected by the result of the game that has finished because in the latter game one of the players instead of taking the easy draw decides to fight on and risk a loss because he needs the win.

PHAT
06-01-2004, 12:09 PM
Patient:BG
Craven Test: Fail
Recommendation: Not for resusitation.

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 12:11 PM
Mental Patient: MS
Prognosis : Beyond Hope
Recommendation: Solitary Confinement so as not to endanger others.

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 12:21 PM
i have had a gutful of both of you talking crap and trying to prove who is smarter or more stubborn. You both permiate almost all of the threads and carry on with the same crap. I am sure other posters too are getting pissed off with it, i know i certainly am.

ursogr8
06-01-2004, 12:36 PM
i have had a gutful of both of you talking crap and trying to prove who is smarter or more stubborn. You both permiate almost all of the threads and carry on with the same crap. I am sure other posters too are getting [censored] off with it, i know i certainly am.

Yes, but, every now and then there is a pearl. Like the marbles in the bag question. So, g'g'r'a'y, just set your filter a bit more granular.

starter

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 12:48 PM
i have had a gutful of both of you talking crap and trying to prove who is smarter or more stubborn.
You poor didums. :-({|=
As to who is smarter or more stubborn I never thought it was in doubt.
I'm both smarter and more stubborn. =D> \:D/


You both permiate almost all of the threads and carry on with the same crap. I am sure other posters too are getting [censored] off with it, i know i certainly am.
Just [-( for a second. If people like you were prepared to argue with Matt when he posts crap then I wouldnt have to.

And as Paul would say.

Calm down and just chill. ;)

If not then just =;

Rincewind
06-01-2004, 12:53 PM
Question:
A bag contains an unknown number of marbles >1.
Each marble is either black or white.
You draw out one marble, it is white and you put it in your pocket.
What colour is most likely to be pulled out in the next draw, and why?

The correct answer to this is that you have insufficent information to answer the question. All you know is that your chance of drawing a white marble has decreased and your chance of drawing a black marble has increased (provided the number of marbles in the bag is finite). But without knowing the initial mix and number of marbles you can't say either colour is more likely than another.

Here are two possible answers based on an unprovided assumption which lead to opposite answers.

Assumption 1: The initial mix of black to white was 1:1

Answer 1: Black is now more likely as there are now 1 more black marble than white. However the change in probability is inversely proportional to the initial number of marbles in the bag.

Assumption 2: The initial mix of black to white was significantly different from 1:1 and there were a reasonably large number of marbles in the bag.

Answer 2: White was pulled out first so it is more likely that there were more white than black. Due to the large number of marble the non-replacement has not affected probablilities too greatly and therefore White is again the more likely result.

However, neither answer is correct unless the assumptions are accepted.


To illustrate the point for you here are some questions which have answers.

1. You have a bag with black and white marbles, 12 of one colour and 8 of the other. A marble is drawn at random (it happens to be white) and put into your pocket. Is it now more likely that the next marble drawn will be black or white? (4 points)

2. Provide the probability to 4 decimal places. (2 points)

ursogr8
06-01-2004, 01:17 PM
i have had a gutful of both of you talking crap and trying to prove who is smarter or more stubborn. You both permiate almost all of the threads and carry on with the same crap. I am sure other posters too are getting [censored] off with it, i know i certainly am.

Perhaps ''gray" you struggle to see when Bill is being humorous. We know from the post this morning that firegoat has this difficulty.
Let me point out one of my favourite humorous lines from Bill in the past 24 hours. I really giggled when Bill said

Mental Patient: MS
Prognosis : Beyond Hope
Recommendation: Solitary Confinement so as not to endanger others.

given that Bill had spent many hours trying to dig Matt out of the solitary confinement that Gandalf had imposed.
See, Bill can be very subtly humorous.

Bill, could you help ‘gray’ by having a special emoticon next to your jokes?

starter

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 01:19 PM
yes i do prefer the use of emoticons :P makes things easier to avoid confusion.

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 01:32 PM
Unfortunately there is no emoticon available to denote morons, cretins, dipsticks or neanderthals. :D

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 01:36 PM
I must congratulate Barry for having the patience to respond to Matt's probability question and to point out its flaws. =D>

Its pleasing to note that someone from the "gong" area has some brains. ;)

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 01:37 PM
umm this could work for some times ](*,) and then #-o

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 01:39 PM
umm this could work for some times ](*,) and then #-o

I like to think of my approach to Matt as instead of ](*,) as more of taking a sledgehammer to the wall. ;)

PHAT
06-01-2004, 01:40 PM
The correct answer to this is that you have insufficent information to answer the question.


Almost true. We can always answer. I practical terms. the answer is "a white marble". However, your arguments and examples are 100% correct! I concur fully with you. We must make some assumptions.

I put it to you that practically, the bag it not of infinite size. Further that the proportion of white to black is unknown, and thus in practical terms normally distributed unless otherwise known. Therfore, of all the possible actual black and actual white marbles in the bag there are proportional very few that have B=W. This means that the number of balck and white are nearly always unequil. Now we can say, as you have already explained, that what ever draw out first is the best prediction for the second marble's colour.

Baryy Cox [1] Bill Gletsos [0]

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 01:45 PM
The correct answer to this is that you have insufficent information to answer the question.


Almost true. We can always answer. I practical terms. the answer is "a white marble". However, your arguments and examples are 100% correct! I concur fully with you. We must make some assumptions.

I put it to you that practically, the bag it not of infinite size. Further that the proportion of white to black is unknown, and thus in practical terms normally distributed unless otherwise known. Therfore, of all the possible actual black and actual white marbles in the bag there are proportional very few that have B=W. This means that the number of balck and white are nearly always unequil. Now we can say, as you have already explained, that what ever draw out first is the best prediction for the second marble's colour.

Baryy Cox [1] Bill Gletsos [0]

It is when you make such assumptions based on no evidence and poor logic that you simply demonstrate what a fool YOU are.

If indeed the scores are BC: 1, WG: 0 then MS: -1000.

I of course would contend that the scores are:
BC: 1 for taking the time to show what a fool you are. :-k
BG : 1 for having to do nothing to show what a fool you are. :-''

MS: -1000 by amply demonstrating what a fool he is. ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

Rincewind
06-01-2004, 02:20 PM
Almost true. We can always answer. I practical terms. the answer is "a white marble". However, your arguments and examples are 100% correct! I concur fully with you. We must make some assumptions.

Not so. We can answer or we can guess. When assuming you are making a guess as to what is reasonable. You cannot say what the probability of your guess being correct is. You may as well flip a coin.


I put it to you that practically, the bag it not of infinite size. Further that the proportion of white to black is unknown, and thus in practical terms normally distributed unless otherwise known. Therfore, of all the possible actual black and actual white marbles in the bag there are proportional very few that have B=W. This means that the number of balck and white are nearly always unequil. Now we can say, as you have already explained, that what ever draw out first is the best prediction for the second marble's colour.

Here you are making some additional assumptions as to the likely distribution of marbles. Furthermore, your logic is flawed. The reliability of the "same again" strategy is improved the more biased the sample of marbles and the greater the number of marbles, however, the first rule of Probability is do not trust your intuition.

BTW did you have a crack at my question? (hint)

Marbles are distributed 12/8, does the "same again" strategy perform better or worse than the "opposite" strategy?

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 02:21 PM
Another factor is that there is a relationship between the rating difference and the probability that a win will occur. The games where a win did occur are more likely to be those with a high rating difference and therefore the win was more likely to be correctly predicted based on rating. This even appears (albeit not significantly) in this sample - in the six biggest mismatches three were wins with all three going to the highest rated player. The nine remaining games included only another three wins, one of which was an upset.

So if there were another six wins, the best case scenario for Matt is that these include the three biggest mismatches and three others, in which case he might get another 5/6 if the previous trends hold up. But if one of the mismatches isn't a win, what Matt can expect based on the other games is dropping towards 4/6.

There's more - we know based on rating stats that if there is a win between players with rating differences towards the higher end of this group (say 150 points) then the chance of a win for the higher rated player isn't really as high as 100%. And for the lower rating differences (around 50 points) it probably isn't really quite as high as 67%. You'd need actual game stats to say exactly what these figures would really be.

I think that had another six games been won it's most likely Matt would have got about 4 right rather than the 5 he claims, given the above. That would still give him 9/15 - I'm not sure whether that would have won, but certainly that big run of draws diddled him out of any chance at all.

Unlucky. :P

PHAT
06-01-2004, 03:39 PM
1. You have a bag with black and white marbles, 12 of one colour and 8 of the other. A marble is drawn at random (it happens to be white) and put into your pocket. Is it now more likely that the next marble drawn will be black or white? (4 points)

2. Provide the probability to 4 decimal places. (2 points)

#1. On the first draw, the chance of pulling a balck was 12/20, nevertheless you pulled a white.
On the second raw, the cahnce of pulling a black is even better, 12/19.

#2. On the first draw, black P=0.6000
On the second draw, black p=0.6316




Now Barry, Dr Evil has your girlfriend suspended above a pool of sharks with lasers on their heads. He shows gives you a bag of black and white marbles and directs you to pull one out. You do, and it is white. He then says if you can guess the colour of the next marble he will spare your girl friend's life. What do you guess, Barry Cox?

I real question requiring a real answer in a real(?) world where all the parameters are not given to you like in a year 6 maths test. How do you choose?

Rincewind
06-01-2004, 03:59 PM
1. You have a bag with black and white marbles, 12 of one colour and 8 of the other. A marble is drawn at random (it happens to be white) and put into your pocket. Is it now more likely that the next marble drawn will be black or white? (4 points)

2. Provide the probability to 4 decimal places. (2 points)

#1. On the first draw, the chance of pulling a balck was 12/20, nevertheless you pulled a white.
On the second raw, the cahnce of pulling a black is even better, 12/19.

#2. On the first draw, black P=0.6000
On the second draw, black p=0.6316

I never said there were 12 black and 8 white. It could be the other way around. Please reconsider and resubmit an answer without predjudice.


Now Barry, Dr Evil has your girlfriend suspended above a pool of sharks with lasers on their heads. He shows gives you a bag of black and white marbles and directs you to pull one out. You do, and it is white. He then says if you can guess the colour of the next marble he will spare your girl friend's life. What do you guess, Barry Cox?

I'd mentally toss a coin and then go the OPPOSITE way to my first guess. My reasoning is my fist guess will be wrong because to be is such a situation Dr :evil: must have already stole my mojo, man.


I real question requiring a real answer in a real(?) world where all the parameters are not given to you like in a year 6 maths test. How do you choose?

Mathematically astute year 6 kids would eat this sort of problem up.

In the real world you would also have a number of cues which you did not provide in the message. The size and possible the weight of the bag, the size and weight of an individual marble. Whether the bag looked full or empty, etc, etc, etc. Which could give you a guess as to the number of marbles.

However, the key to the problem is the mix of marbles. Without some cue as to what that might be, your stabbing in the dark.

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 05:28 PM
nice try matt at putting up your predictions after the round is over. crook [-X

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 05:42 PM
Wowee. Lane has beaten Johansen. Actually I was expecting that to happen, but I wasn't expecting Levi to beat Smerdon. Levi keeps on bouncing back but Smerdon and Johansen are having shockers.

6 Lane
5.5 Rogers, Solomon, Chapman, Tao, Levi
5 Zhao, Bjelobrk

The rest are surely out of it now.

Lane has played Rogers, Solomon, Chapman, Tao, Levi, Bjelobrk and Johansen. He's beaten both GMs and is running out of opponents who are both strong enough and playing well enough to threaten him. If he can get past Zhao, the pack just might not catch him.

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 06:24 PM
nice try matt at putting up your predictions after the round is over. crook [-X

Not that I'm one to immediately jump to Matt's defense but as far as I can tell he posted his predicitions at "Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:02 pm" which is nearly 90 mins prior to the start of the round.

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 06:30 PM
Wowee. Lane has beaten Johansen. Actually I was expecting that to happen, but I wasn't expecting Levi to beat Smerdon. Levi keeps on bouncing back but Smerdon and Johansen are having shockers.

6 Lane
5.5 Rogers, Solomon, Chapman, Tao, Levi
5 Zhao, Bjelobrk

The rest are surely out of it now.

Lane has played Rogers, Solomon, Chapman, Tao, Levi, Bjelobrk and Johansen. He's beaten both GMs and is running out of opponents who are both strong enough and playing well enough to threaten him. If he can get past Zhao, the pack just might not catch him.
Of course if Lane only draws his next game then he could be joined by some of the others on 5.5.

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 06:35 PM
nice try matt at putting up your predictions after the round is over. crook [-X

Not that I'm one to immediately jump to Matt's defense but as far as I can tell he posted his predicitions at "Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2004 12:02 pm" which is nearly 90 mins prior to the start of the round.
sorry i was watching for his predictions and didnt see them until after the round was over, i suspected he put the format up before the round and then edited or something. sorry matt i was wrong :shock:

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 06:45 PM
It appears Jenni got 7/15 correct and Matt 5/15.

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 08:04 PM
Of course if Lane only draws his next game then he could be joined by some of the others on 5.5.

He could - although even if he draws with Zhao (who I assume he'll be playing next unless Swiss Perfect does that group-lumping thing I don't like) some of the others will have harder games in the last two rounds than he will. Rogers is probably still the favourite to win, either outright or via playoff but Lane is a serious threat now.

chesslover
06-01-2004, 08:44 PM
i have had a gutful of both of you talking crap and trying to prove who is smarter or more stubborn.
You poor didums. :-({|=
As to who is smarter or more stubborn I never thought it was in doubt.
I'm both smarter and more stubborn. =D> \:D/



I agree 100%

There is absolutly no doubt that you are smarter than Matt

In fact you probably forget more in a night's sleep, than Matt would learn in his lifetime of "studies" :D

chesslover
06-01-2004, 08:52 PM
Perhaps ''gray" you struggle to see when Bill is being humorous. We know from the post this morning that firegoat has this difficulty.
Let me point out one of my favourite humorous lines from Bill in the past 24 hours. I really giggled when Bill said

Mental Patient: MS
Prognosis : Beyond Hope
Recommendation: Solitary Confinement so as not to endanger others.

given that Bill had spent many hours trying to dig Matt out of the solitary confinement that Gandalf had imposed.
See, Bill can be very subtly humorous.



Yes that was very funny indeed'

I laughed so hard that I hurt

Bill is not only an intellectual giant, but his sense of humour and putdowns are very witty

chesslover
06-01-2004, 08:56 PM
Rogers is probably still the favourite to win, either outright or via playoff but Lane is a serious threat now.

I still think Rogers to win, due to his great preparation which was aptly demonstrated by his win today over Solo

But lane I thought was a serious threat as soon as he beat GM Rogers. His win over GM Johansen is simply briliant :o

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 09:23 PM
There were some very smooth performances on the top boards today. As you mention Solomon soon went astray once Rogers steered things into a less common line. I am not quite sure what Johansen did wrong against Lane. I don't know the rare 3...Ne7 at all (why should I when I like ...Nf6 so much?) so I'm not sure what the problem was, but once Lane opened the board up he was really able to make impressive use of his space advantage. Tao likewise was convincing in the way he opened up the K-side and crashed through against Yu.

Seems the quality of the top games has been better in the past few days - before that there had been all kinds of swindles, shockers and blunders going on.

PHAT
06-01-2004, 10:04 PM
nice try matt at putting up your predictions after the round is over. crook [-X

What? I posted at 12:02 Don't the games start at 1:00. In any case I hope you aren't suggesting I would stoop [-( . I'll just go and check the scores now 11:03 and see if you have fleeced me :?

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 10:07 PM
bill i think said that this is right about the times and i apologised earlier :D . you got five but i havent looked to see how many i got.

PHAT
06-01-2004, 10:18 PM
G=6
J=7
M=6

OK Jenni is into me for $10x2 =$20 ; A tie with G and so I still owe $10

Jenni, I won't bet against you again (this event)

G''' , are you right to go doulbe or nothing on round 9 ?

chesslover
06-01-2004, 10:28 PM
G=6
J=7
M=6

OK Jenni is into me for $10x2 =$20 ; A tie with G and so I still owe $10

Jenni, I won't bet against you again (this event)

G''' , are you right to go doulbe or nothing on round 9 ?

Gray - no take the money. Matyt is tricking you into playing further so that he can win the money back. Dont fall for it

Matt - once again you have exposed your lack of probability knowledge. casinos keep inviting winners to play and play and play again, so thatthey can win the monety back. Thus you should have gone double or nothing with Jenni again

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 10:36 PM
Gray - no take the money. Matt is tricking you into playing further so that he can win the money back. Dont fall for it

cl i dont care about the money, i just like betting against ppl and trying to predict results, i dont expect to win.

sure matt double on round nine but instead how about we go the count over the last three rounds?

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 10:44 PM
Matt - once again you have exposed your lack of probability knowledge. casinos keep inviting winners to play and play and play again, so thatthey can win the monety back.

Casinos probably keep inviting everyone except card-counters to play and play again, but this is only because the odds are so stacked in the casino's favour. As most casino games are determined by luck and all bar a few are stacked (and even those not stacked require considerable skill to win on) the casino would usually be just as happy to play double or nothing with a winner, as for a loser to play double or nothing with them. The dice have no memory of the winner's previous victories, if he plays again the likely outcome is again a casino profit.

This is not the same in this case. If Garvin believes he is better at picking winners than Matt his best strategy is to keep taking Matt on. Only if he expects to do worse should he stop.

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 10:50 PM
This is not the same in this case. If Garvin believes he is better at picking winners than Matt his best strategy is to keep taking Matt on. Only if he expects to do worse should he stop.
but still kevin, i could beat matt many times in a row,but as soon as i lose one, i dont get any money.

chesslover
06-01-2004, 10:50 PM
As most casino games are determined by luck and all bar a few are stacked (and even those not stacked require considerable skill to win on) the casino would usually be just as happy to play double or nothing with a winner, as for a loser to play double or nothing with them.
This is not the same in this case. If Garvin believes he is better at picking winners than Matt his best strategy is to keep taking Matt on. Only if he expects to do worse should he stop.

Ok, i accept that valid point

casinos are games of chance, while picking chess results are a game of skill, rather than a game of chance :idea:

jenni
06-01-2004, 10:58 PM
G=6
J=7
M=6


Jenni, I won't bet against you again (this event)



I leave for Perth in 7 hours, so I am out of it anyway. (Besides I am copping too much from my family).

Kevin Bonham
06-01-2004, 11:12 PM
but still kevin, i could beat matt many times in a row,but as soon as i lose one, i dont get any money.

This is true. And some people use the reverse procedure by doubling their bets until they win once, then quitting, meaning that they almost always have a small win. The downside is that there's a risk that one day they will have a massive loss.

Another issue is that while we are talking about the theoretical payoff of a money victory, in some situations one would prefer a small profit and in some situations one would prefer a chance at a large one. The payoff in theory may be the same, but in terms of the value of the money to you it might not be. Hypothetically, you might be a dollar short of something you really want straight away, and then it makes sense to gamble a dollar at even odds to try to get there. But if you then win a dollar and have exactly the right amount, it would be madness to play double or nothing.

Bill Gletsos
06-01-2004, 11:46 PM
G=6
J=7
M=6

OK Jenni is into me for $10x2 =$20 ; A tie with G and so I still owe $10

Jenni, I won't bet against you again (this event)

G''' , are you right to go doulbe or nothing on round 9 ?

As far as I can see You only got 5 not 6.

Matt Correct:
1 Rogers, Ian Solomon, Stephen J 1-0
8 Rej, Tomek Charles, Gareth 1-0
9 Barber, Haydn J Xie, George 0-1
12 Wright, Neil S Jovanovic, Peter draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin Booth, Stewart draw

Garvinator
06-01-2004, 11:49 PM
bill, matt actually predicted a loss for petra. so he had six wins.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 12:00 AM
Oops yeah missed that one.

PHAT
07-01-2004, 12:36 AM
1. You have a bag with black and white marbles, 12 of one colour and 8 of the other. A marble is drawn at random (it happens to be white) and put into your pocket. Is it now more likely that the next marble drawn will be black or white? (4 points)

2. Provide the probability to 4 decimal places. (2 points)

#1. The most likely colour of the second marble is white.

#2. There are 4 possible outcomes for the two marble draw without replacement:
Majority marble, Majority marble
Majority marble, Minority marble
Minority marble, Majority marble
Minority marble, Minority marble

The probablity of these are :
12/20 x 11/19 = 0.3474
12/20 x 8/19 = 0.2526
8/20 x 12/19 = 0.2526
8/20 x 7/19 = 0.1474
SUM =1=P

The P of a Major coming out second is
(12/20 x 11/20) + (8/20 x 12/19) = 0.6000

The P of a Minor coming out is
1 - P(Maj) = 1 - 0.6000 = 0.4000

The first marble drawn was White,
and the P of drawing a Maj in the first draw is 12/20 = 0.6000,
hense the P of White being the Maj is also 0.6000.

It has been shown that that the porobabilty of drawing a Maj in the second draw is also 0.6. In deed, in the absence of information of what has already been draw, the P of drawing a Maj in any/every draw is always 0.6

Therefore the chance of the second marble being White is also 0.6000

Sorry Barry, your flipped coin and going against your instinct means the laser fitted sharks have just made yum cha of your girlfriend. :evil: :twisted:

Rincewind
07-01-2004, 01:13 AM
Actually your score is

Q1 - 0 points - harsh but fair, the correct answer is Black

Q2 - 1 point - generous but some of your working is right, although your logic is confused.

1/6 is not a good start but don't lose heart, there will be future assignment with which you can earn credits prior to exam day.


The correct solution is as follows.

The colour of the marbles is largely irrelevant as we don't know if white or black is the majority. The easiest thing to do is to calculate the probablity of the second marble being the same colour as the first marble.

That is Maj then Maj, or Min then Min.

The probability (P1) is 12/20 * 11/19 + 8/20 * 7/19 = (132 + 56)/380 = 188/380

For completeness, possibilities for differing colours are Maj then Min or Min then Maj

The probability (P2) is 12/20 * 8/19 + 8/20 * 12/19 = (96 + 96)/380 = 192/380

NB: P1 + P2 = 1

NMB: P1 < P2

So the most likely result (although only ever so slightly) is that second marble will differ in colour from the first. The first was White, therefore the second will most likely be Black.

The correct answers are

Q1. It is more likely that the second marble will be Black

Q2. Black (P2) = 192/380 ~ 0.5053
White (P1) = 188/380 ~ 0.4947

Feel free to asks questions, but next time you're working on a probability problem, don't forget to check your intuition in at the cloak room as it usually leads one astray. ;)

If you don't believe me do a web search on the "Monty Hall Problem". That one is a beauty.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2004, 01:25 AM
I did this independently and got exactly the same answer as Barry, though I wouldn't have explained it as well as he did. Very neat example indeed. :D

Rincewind
07-01-2004, 01:40 AM
I did this independently and got exactly the same answer as Barry, though I wouldn't have explained it as well as he did. Very neat example indeed. :D

Thanks, as an footnote, the inequality that is satisfied for differing colours to be more likely that same colours is quite neat. Here it is...

(x1 - x2) ^ 2 < (x1 + x2)

where x1 and x2 are the numbers of marbles of each colour.

Or to express in words, the second marble is more likely to differ in colour from the first when the square of the difference in number of the marbles of each colour is less than the total number of marbles.

In this example x1 = 12, x2 = 8

RHS = 12 + 8 = 20 (total number of marbles)

LHS = (12 - 8 ) ^ 2 = 4 ^ 2 = 16 (square of the difference (in this case 4))

Anyway, LHS is less than RHS in this example so different marbles rule. ;)

Kevin, if you haven't already you might like to derive this inequality to see if I have this right.

PHAT
07-01-2004, 09:06 AM
OK, best of 3x15=45 games for double or nothign on $10 :)

1 Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [6] : Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] 0-1
2 Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [5.5] : Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [5.5] 1-0
3 Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [5.5] : Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] Draw
4 Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [5] : Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [5.5] 1-0
5 Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [4.5] : Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [4.5] 1-0
6 Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [4.5] : Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] Draw
7 Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4] : Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [4.5] 1-0
8 Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [4] : Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4] 1-0
9 Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4] : Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [4] Draw
10 Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [3.5] : Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [3.5] Draw
11 Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [3] : Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] 0-1
12 Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [3] : Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [3] 0-1
13 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [2.5] : Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [3] 0-1
14 Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [3] : Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2] 1-0
15 Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [3] : Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] 1-0

jenni
07-01-2004, 09:14 AM
Gosh I'd love to be betting against Matt on this one!

In Sydney airport at the moment, but couldn't resist checking his predictions

PHAT
07-01-2004, 09:36 AM
Actually your score is

Q1 - 0 points - harsh but fair, the correct answer is Black

Q2 - 1 point - generous but some of your working is right, although your logic is confused.

1/6 is not a good start but don't lose heart, there will be future assignment with which you can earn credits prior to exam day.



That is a really tough marking system :shock: . I would have though maybe 3/6 . 2 for using a matrix, 2 for calculating their probabilities, -2 for logic error, 0 for answer, bonus 1 for showing that all draws have exactly the same chance of a Maj being picked.



Yes, I can see how I made it hard for myself, and picked the wrong matrix pair. I like how your more eligant approach did not lead to the logical complexities that I stuffed up. :D That Monty Hall Problem is a cracker. You bloody professional mathamaticians come up with fabulous ways to fool people.

However, you still have yet to say why you picked Black as the second colour in the absence of sufficient information. ;)

You could reasonably assume the ratio of Maj to Min is normaly distributed. Futhermore, you might assume that estimates of the number of marbles on the bag would have an asymetric distribution. Putting those equations and your personbal estimate of the number of marbles, together with the inequality you gave {(x1 - x2) ^ 2 < (x1 + x2)} you might have found the solution, while your girlfriend was dangling - but I doubt it. So why did you pick black.

PHAT
07-01-2004, 09:45 AM
Gosh I'd love to be betting against Matt on this one!

In Sydney airport at the moment, but couldn't resist checking his predictions

Ho Ho Ho. Easy to say that when you aren't betting and $20 up. If you are so cochsure of your own selection, you might concider giving me odds of 4:1. If you do I'll have $5 on it - or on round 10.

PHAT
07-01-2004, 09:53 AM
I did this independently and got exactly the same answer as Barry, though I wouldn't have explained it as well as he did. Very neat example indeed. :D

It's safer to be right after the answer is announced.

Patient: KB
Craven Test: Fail
Recommendation: Councilling for tortusphobia

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 10:10 AM
I did this independently and got exactly the same answer as Barry, though I wouldn't have explained it as well as he did. Very neat example indeed. :D

It's safer to be right after the answer is announced.

Patient: KB
Craven Test: Fail
Recommendation: Councilling for tortusphobia
I'm not sure if you think your a doctor or a exam marker.

If your a doctor then your diagnosis is clearly wrong due to you continuing to be a self practicing proctologist. :-''
In fact given your .sig one could conclude that you keeping view things with your third eye. #-o

If you are claiming to be an exam marker then it would help if the you actually could answer the questions correctly. :rolleyes:

As for your attempt at Barry's question and domplaining about his scoring methods. Dont most people who score badly blame the question/marker. ](*,)

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 10:13 AM
Gosh I'd love to be betting against Matt on this one!

In Sydney airport at the moment, but couldn't resist checking his predictions

Ho Ho Ho. Easy to say that when you aren't betting and $20 up. If you are so cochsure of your own selection, you might concider giving me odds of 4:1. If you do I'll have $5 on it - or on round 10.

Given their is no round being played today and the round is being played tomorrow then perhaps jenni can give her predictions from Perth.

PHAT
07-01-2004, 10:48 AM
If you are claiming to be an exam marker then it would help if the you actually could answer the questions correctly. :rolleyes:



I have mad e no such claim.




As for your attempt at Barry's question and complaining about his scoring methods. Dont most people who score badly blame the question/marker.



I don't know. Do you? In any case, I blame myself for what is within my control, and I complain about what is wihin the control of others.

The points you score in your pointscoring quest are all behinds.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 11:03 AM
If you are claiming to be an exam marker then it would help if the you actually could answer the questions correctly. :rolleyes:



I have mad e no such claim.




As for your attempt at Barry's question and complaining about his scoring methods. Dont most people who score badly blame the question/marker.



I don't know. Do you? In any case, I blame myself for what is within my control, and I complain about what is wihin the control of others.

The points you score in your pointscoring quest are all behinds.
Thats still better than being like you and missing the goal posts completely. :D

PHAT
07-01-2004, 11:25 AM
Thats still better than being like you and missing the goal posts completely. :D




I would rather score 0 while playing with others, than score 6 points while playing with myself.

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 12:19 PM
Yes thats the beauty of chess you can always play a game with yourself. Makes it very hard to win because you always know what your opponents thinking. :-k

Rincewind
07-01-2004, 12:52 PM
That is a really tough marking system :shock: . I would have though maybe 3/6 . 2 for using a matrix, 2 for calculating their probabilities, -2 for logic error, 0 for answer, bonus 1 for showing that all draws have exactly the same chance of a Maj being picked.

Yes, I can see how I made it hard for myself, and picked the wrong matrix pair. I like how your more eligant approach did not lead to the logical complexities that I stuffed up. :D That Monty Hall Problem is a cracker. You bloody professional mathamaticians come up with fabulous ways to fool people.

However, you still have yet to say why you picked Black as the second colour in the absence of sufficient information. ;)

You could reasonably assume the ratio of Maj to Min is normaly distributed. Futhermore, you might assume that estimates of the number of marbles on the bag would have an asymetric distribution. Putting those equations and your personbal estimate of the number of marbles, together with the inequality you gave {(x1 - x2) ^ 2 < (x1 + x2)} you might have found the solution, while your girlfriend was dangling - but I doubt it. So why did you pick black.

Matt (et al),

I've started a new topic in the Non-Chess section for the marbles from a bag problem. It's called Is Probability Intuitive? (http://www.chesschat.org/viewtopic.php?t=218)

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2004, 01:24 PM
It's safer to be right after the answer is announced.

Yes, but my correctness is in this instance falsifiable. You could subject me to a lie detector test, or you could arrange for ink analysis of the paper I did my rough working on. Of course this would have to be done at your expense and with a clause requiring you to tattoo the words "Omega Wolf" on your forehead when the results did not go your way.

Had I typed my answer in the first time you got it wrong I would have missed the delectable spectacle of seeing you get it wrong again. Then Barry beat me to it the second time.

Now, as I love to play up to your sad little delusions about how rampantly egotistic I am (yes, it is actually possible to overestimate it), let me remind you that I am a former Australian Maths Olympiad medallist and that the problem you have just got wrong twice is obviously a piece of cake for the likes of me. :P :P :P

See you in the offtopic section. Barry, give him some more (nothing way too hard, I'm rusty), this time I will post the correct answer after Matthew gets it wrong.

PHAT
07-01-2004, 03:19 PM
It's safer to be right after the answer is announced.

...Of course this would have to be done at your expense and with a clause requiring you to tattoo the words "Omega Wolf" on your forehead when the results did not go your way.



You are displaying a worrying willingness to make us an adult version of Cubs with our pack titles. If you wish to do this, could you kindly inform us, which out of Bill and yourself, is the "Alpha Bi.tch"



... let me remind you that I am a former Australian Maths Olympiad medallist ...

Remind me? I never knew that you were part of the Every-Kiddy-Gets-A-Prize Olympiads.

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2004, 05:46 PM
You are displaying a worrying willingness to make us an adult version of Cubs with our pack titles.

Who said anything about you qualifying for the adult version?


Remind me? I never knew that you were part of the Every-Kiddy-Gets-A-Prize Olympiads.

Actually that was matric level, and there were about 60 medallists in the country. Lest you think that I'm actually especially good at this stuff, though, I did only get a bronze. :(

PHAT
07-01-2004, 06:48 PM
[quote="Kevin Bonham"]


...Of course this would have to be done at your expense and with a clause requiring you to tattoo the words "Omega Wolf" on your forehead when the results did not go your way.



Twice now, you have labelled me an omega wolfin this pack - I need to know more about your analogy. This is the third time I have asked this question - the first two times you have failed to answer it. Could you kindly inform us, which out of Bill and yourself, is the "Alpha Bi.tch"

Kevin Bonham
07-01-2004, 11:27 PM
What ya gunna do, claim a draw by triple repetition?

Bill Gletsos
07-01-2004, 11:34 PM
Whats the chance he loses the right to claim by touching a piece at the wrong time. ;)

Garvinator
08-01-2004, 01:12 AM
OK, best of 3x15=45 games for double or nothign on $10 :)

1 Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [6] : Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] 0-1
2 Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [5.5] : Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [5.5] 1-0
3 Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [5.5] : Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] Draw
4 Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [5] : Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [5.5] 1-0
5 Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [4.5] : Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [4.5] 1-0
6 Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [4.5] : Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] Draw
7 Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4] : Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [4.5] 1-0
8 Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [4] : Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4] 1-0
9 Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4] : Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [4] Draw
10 Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [3.5] : Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [3.5] Draw
11 Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [3] : Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] 0-1
12 Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [3] : Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [3] 0-1
13 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [2.5] : Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [3] 0-1
14 Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [3] : Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2] 1-0
15 Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [3] : Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] 1-0


My predictions:
1 Lane 2420 [6] : Zhao 2398 [5] draw
2 Solomon 2400 [5.5] : Tao 2390 [5.5] 1-0
3 Chapman 2349 [5.5] : Levi 2269 [5.5] draw
4 Bjelobrk 2338 [5] : Rogers 2574 [5.5] 0-1
5 Johansen 2499 [4.5] : Yu 2265 [4.5] 1-0
6 Canfell 2279 [4.5] : Xie 2238 [4.5] draw
7 Depasquale 2327 [4] : Rej 2242 [4.5] 0-1
8 Smerdon 2427 [4] : Jones 2176 [4] 1-0
9 Boyd 2253 [4] : Tan, 2250 [4] draw
10 Charles 2171 [3.5] : Wright 2149 [3.5] 1-0
11 Reilly 2297 [3] : Thaw 2204 [3] 1-0
12 Jovanovic 2068 [3] : Barber 2287 [3] draw
13 Eriksson 2096 [2.5] : Hacche 2206 [3] 0-1
14 Blazkova 2266 [3] : Haasse 2179 [2] 1-0
15 Booth 2177 [3] : Szuveges 1920 [1.5] 1-0

PHAT
08-01-2004, 09:48 AM
[Hand in the air]
[To Arbitor] "When I ask KB who is the Alpha Bi.tch it will be a triple repetition of Question and avoidence."

PHAT
08-01-2004, 09:50 AM
KB, which you you and Bill is the Alpha Bi.tch?

Abitor: "Draw"



WHY MUST I DRAW WITH THIS IDIOT!

Sucker
08-01-2004, 01:56 PM
heheh ... chess humour ... :rolleyes:

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2004, 02:03 PM
KB, which you you and Bill is the Alpha Bi.tch?

Abitor: "Draw"



WHY MUST I DRAW WITH THIS IDIOT!
Did you ever stop and consider that Kevin and I might be Alpha Males.

PHAT
08-01-2004, 03:24 PM
Did you ever stop and consider that Kevin and I might be Alpha Males.

For one nanosececond.

There can only be alpha male and one alpha female in a pack. So, who is on top at the top?

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2004, 03:46 PM
Did you ever stop and consider that Kevin and I might be Alpha Males.

For one nanosececond.

There can only be alpha male and one alpha female in a pack. So, who is on top at the top?
Then you should have considered it longer.
In this pack there are two Alpha Males.

Garvinator
08-01-2004, 05:39 PM
OK, best of 3x15=45 games for double or nothign on $10 :)

1 Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [6] : Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] 0-1
2 Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [5.5] : Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [5.5] 1-0
3 Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [5.5] : Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] Draw
4 Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [5] : Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [5.5] 1-0
5 Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [4.5] : Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [4.5] 1-0
6 Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [4.5] : Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] Draw
7 Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4] : Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [4.5] 1-0
8 Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [4] : Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4] 1-0
9 Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4] : Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [4] Draw
10 Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [3.5] : Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [3.5] Draw
11 Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [3] : Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] 0-1
12 Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [3] : Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [3] 0-1
13 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [2.5] : Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [3] 0-1
14 Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [3] : Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2] 1-0
15 Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [3] : Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] 1-0


My predictions:
1 Lane 2420 [6] : Zhao 2398 [5] draw
2 Solomon 2400 [5.5] : Tao 2390 [5.5] 1-0
3 Chapman 2349 [5.5] : Levi 2269 [5.5] draw
4 Bjelobrk 2338 [5] : Rogers 2574 [5.5] 0-1
5 Johansen 2499 [4.5] : Yu 2265 [4.5] 1-0
6 Canfell 2279 [4.5] : Xie 2238 [4.5] draw
7 Depasquale 2327 [4] : Rej 2242 [4.5] 0-1
8 Smerdon 2427 [4] : Jones 2176 [4] 1-0
9 Boyd 2253 [4] : Tan, 2250 [4] draw
10 Charles 2171 [3.5] : Wright 2149 [3.5] 1-0
11 Reilly 2297 [3] : Thaw 2204 [3] 1-0
12 Jovanovic 2068 [3] : Barber 2287 [3] draw
13 Eriksson 2096 [2.5] : Hacche 2206 [3] 0-1
14 Blazkova 2266 [3] : Haasse 2179 [2] 1-0
15 Booth 2177 [3] : Szuveges 1920 [1.5] 1-0

My addition makes the score from this round:

Garvin 7
Matt 4.

Is this correct?

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2004, 05:48 PM
Didn't he only get 5, 14, and 15 correct.

What was his 4th.

Garvinator
08-01-2004, 05:51 PM
Didn't he only get 5, 14, and 15 correct.

What was his 4th.
and that is why i wanted someone to check the maths, yes the correct total is:

Garvin 7
Matt 3.

chesslover
08-01-2004, 05:55 PM
Did you ever stop and consider that Kevin and I might be Alpha Males.

EXACTLY

And I think that is why there are a lot of arguements, as you'll 3 try to establish who is the alpha male

chesslover
08-01-2004, 06:01 PM
7 - Lane
6.5 - Rogers, Chapman

And with 2 rounds to go, the winner most probably will come from these 3, and Lane by playing all of the other contenders is looking very good to me.

I would have thought that before the ACC started, Rogers would have been on unbackable odds having had such a great 2003, and lane would have at least been behind the 2GMs and Smeardon

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2004, 06:24 PM
KB, which you you and Bill is the Alpha Bi.tch?

Abitor: "Draw"

Bzzzt. Didn't write intended move on your scoresheet so draw claim is invalid. :P :P :P

Now having perilously escaped the repetition draw (in fact the same position occurred four times), Black awakes from his slumber and observes that since he is childless by choice, he cannot possibly be either of the alphas. :)

I'll be Gamma Wolf. That should make me safe from reproduction, while still fairly prominent in the pack. I let the top two beat me because I couldn't be bothered fighting them. I'd go Delta Wolf just to be on the safe side, but that would remind me of Delta Goodrem.

Your move. 8)

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2004, 06:46 PM
7 - Lane
6.5 - Rogers, Chapman

And with 2 rounds to go, the winner most probably will come from these 3, and Lane by playing all of the other contenders is looking very good to me.

Me too. Only two more wins to go. Even WD might do it, there's no guarantee either of the others will go WW, although he has to assume that they will if he wants that outright. He's probably got Canfell to go and the other opponent could be one of several. Smerdon would be the worst case, but Smerdon's not been doing well. His loss to Levi a couple of days ago was a shocker, good one to use as an example of why you shouldn't take the French Exchange lightly just because of its "drawish" reputation.

A draw with Smerdon today and Jones is 4.5/9. Looks like someone's gone looking for his missing ratings points. What bet he makes the top improver's list next period? :)

Bill Gletsos
08-01-2004, 07:16 PM
7 - Lane
6.5 - Rogers, Chapman

And with 2 rounds to go, the winner most probably will come from these 3, and Lane by playing all of the other contenders is looking very good to me.

Me too. Only two more wins to go. Even WD might do it, there's no guarantee either of the others will go WW, although he has to assume that they will if he wants that outright. He's probably got Canfell to go and the other opponent could be one of several. Smerdon would be the worst case, but Smerdon's not been doing well. His loss to Levi a couple of days ago was a shocker, good one to use as an example of why you shouldn't take the French Exchange lightly just because of its "drawish" reputation.

A draw with Smerdon today and Jones is 4.5/9. Looks like someone's gone looking for his missing ratings points. What bet he makes the top improver's list next period? :)
Yes Lane should play Canfell next.
Rogers looks like he could play Levi, Johansen or Rej dpending on color match.
Rogers - Rej looks a color match.

chesslover
08-01-2004, 09:58 PM
Board 3 in Round 10 is the match to watch for me. The only 2 GMs that this country has ever produced going head to head, with Rogers needing to win to stay in touch with Gary Lane =P~

I think Lane, Chapman and Rogers will all win

Kevin Bonham
08-01-2004, 10:23 PM
Yes, Rogers in must-win mode against Darryl will be interesting to see, especially as another loss for Darryl will give him a really poor result so hopefully he will be fired up to avoid it.

The surprising thing is that the defending champ has not yet been eliminated from contention entirely. If he wins twice, and Lane goes LD or worse, he can still make a playoff, but it's terribly unlikely. A lot of people are still technically in contention but most of those are rank outsiders now.

Garvinator
08-01-2004, 10:26 PM
Yes, Rogers in must-win mode against Darryl will be interesting to see, especially as another loss for Darryl will give him a really poor result so hopefully he will be fired up to avoid it.

The surprising thing is that the defending champ has not yet been eliminated from contention entirely. If he wins twice, and Lane goes LD or worse, he can still make a playoff, but it's terribly unlikely. A lot of people are still technically in contention but most of those are rank outsiders now.

and about that playoff ;)

PHAT
09-01-2004, 10:38 AM
1 Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [5.5] : Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [7] 0-1
2 Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [6] : Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [6.5] 0-1
3 Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [6.5] : Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [5.5] 0-1
4 Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [5.5] : Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [6] 0-1
5 Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] : Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [5] Draw
6 Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] : Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [5] 1-0
7 Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] : Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [4.5] Draw
8 Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [4.5] : Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4.5] Draw
9 Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [4] : Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [4.5] Draw
10 Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [4] : Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4] 0-1
11 Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [4] : Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4] 1-0
12 Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [4] : Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [3] Draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] : Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [3.5] Draw
14 Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2] : Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [3.5] 0-1
15 Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [3] : Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] 1-0

Garvinator
09-01-2004, 10:45 AM
1 Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [5.5] : Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [7] 0-1
2 Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [6] : Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [6.5] 0-1
3 Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [6.5] : Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [5.5] 0-1
4 Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [5.5] : Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [6] 0-1
5 Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] : Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [5] Draw
6 Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] : Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [5] 1-0
7 Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] : Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [4.5] Draw
8 Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [4.5] : Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4.5] Draw
9 Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [4] : Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [4.5] Draw
10 Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [4] : Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4] 0-1
11 Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [4] : Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4] 1-0
12 Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [4] : Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [3] Draw
13 Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] : Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [3.5] Draw
14 Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2] : Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [3.5] 0-1
15 Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [3] : Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] 1-0

my predictions:

i actually only really disagree with matts predictions in one game: Rogers v Johansen: my score 1-0

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 10:58 AM
When was the last time Johansen beat Rogers.

PHAT
09-01-2004, 11:33 AM
i actually only really disagree with matts predictions in one game: Rogers v Johansen: my score 1-0

FOUL! You are just peredicting (nearly) exaclty what I predict. Thus I can never catch-up. BOOOOOOOO.

I demand that this round be called null. Round 11 predictions should be lodged with a third party and not for publishment until after the round starts.

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 11:36 AM
Why not just have gg post his predicitions first.

After all its not in your interests too be similar to him.

arosar
09-01-2004, 11:47 AM
Any1 here see the 7.30 Report's segment on the current championship and Aussie chess in general? Whaddya fellas reckon of it?

AR

ursogr8
09-01-2004, 11:57 AM
Any1 here see the 7.30 Report's segment on the current championship and Aussie chess in general? Whaddya fellas reckon of it?

AR

AR
I watched with interest to see how many of our Club members got on camera. I picked up 4.
Good publicity I thought. And could be replayed next year without anyone being the wiser.
Wonder where we can get a copy of the tape so we can play at the Club.

Garvinator
09-01-2004, 12:08 PM
FOUL! You are just peredicting (nearly) exaclty what I predict. Thus I can never catch-up. BOOOOOOOO.

I demand that this round be called null. Round 11 predictions should be lodged with a third party and not for publishment until after the round starts.

lol i was wondering if you would be smart enough to pick that up :D

here are my real predictions:

1 Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [5.5] : Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [7] 0-1
2 Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [6] : Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [6.5] 0-1
3 Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [6.5] : Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [5.5] 1-0
4 Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [5.5] : Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [6] 0-1
5 Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] : Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [5] 1-0
6 Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] : Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [5] draw
7 Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] : Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [4.5] 0-1
8 Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [4.5] : Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4.5] Draw
9 Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [4] : Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [4.5] Draw
10 Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [4] : Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4] 1-0
11 Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [4] : Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4] 1-0
12 Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [4] : Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [3] 1-0
13 Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] : Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [3.5] 0-1
14 Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2] : Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [3.5] 0-1
15 Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [3] : Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] 1-0

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2004, 02:00 PM
Board 3 seems to be a recurring problem. The moves shown on it are 1.Na3 d5 2.exd5 exd5 3.Bb6 Rd7 - anyone got the moves before that?

Chess Dad
09-01-2004, 02:06 PM
over in games & analysis

Bill said


The first moves are missing from the transmission.

They were 1. e4 c5 then as transmitted 2.d4 cd etc
but I am not sure whether there was some others as well

Chess Dad
09-01-2004, 02:10 PM
It looks like board 3 has stopped altogether now as adelaider

has stated on their BB


Board 3:

Once again board 3 is showing problems.
This happened a few rounds ago.

Follow the game tonight when the PGNs are released.

Thanks.

arosar
09-01-2004, 02:35 PM
Wonder where we can get a copy of the tape so we can play at the Club.

You can get one from Andrew Saint. Just email him. He's going to make me a copy and send me the tape. There is a fee though.

AR

arosar
09-01-2004, 05:13 PM
Yo gray! Good to meet u in ICC. Do us a bit of a favour would you and post the final moves here later. Cheers mate.

AR

Garvinator
09-01-2004, 05:15 PM
you would be able to get the moves of each championship game on www.unichess.org and click on championship.

Garvinator
09-01-2004, 06:11 PM
ok after round ten: score for round ten:

Garvin 6
Matt 2

that makes the total:

Garvin 13
Matt 5.

chesslover
09-01-2004, 10:17 PM
Just one round to go, and Lane has all the advantage

The only others who can win therotically (orat leats force a playoff) are

8 - Lane
7.5 - Rogers
7 - Chapman, Soloman

Given lane's hot hot form so far, it would take a brave person to bet against Lane winning the ACCC

I pick Rogers to win, but then so will Lane, making the latter the Champ

Bill Gletsos
09-01-2004, 10:31 PM
Yes, I doubt Lane will take a quick draw and see if Rogers can catch him because I doubt he would want to have to play Ian in a play-off.

chesslover
09-01-2004, 11:35 PM
Yes, I doubt Lane will take a quick draw and see if Rogers can catch him because I doubt he would want to have to play Ian in a play-off.

Agree with you. I think in a play off situation Rogers would be the winner.

However if lane does draw, and Rogers wins, there will be a play off for the title event as well as one for the rapid as well!! A double header playoff!

And if SOlomon wins whilst, Lane, Rogers loses, he will be involved in bot these playoffs - unlikely but fun possibility nonetheless

Kevin Bonham
09-01-2004, 11:43 PM
Tan is a good player and has had a good tournament but you would not really expect him to hold a candle to a fired up and experienced strong IM. Lane so deserves this, if he can do it. The PRs posted by Bill underline that he has been the best performed player, he's played all the strong contenders (except Smerdon who was dismally out of sorts), he totally outplayed one GM and his only loss was a freak defeat from a level position by an endgame legend.

Haven't analysed Canfell-Lane in any detail but it looked pretty woolly in parts, I wonder whether Lane will go all out to beat Tan and ignore board 2 or play slowly with an eye on how Rogers is going against Smerdon (who has beaten Ian a few times). One thing's for sure - Lane would hardly want to take a draw and play catch-me-if-you-can with what happened to Darryl with the game between West and Speck last time.

Garvinator
10-01-2004, 10:56 AM
1 Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [6] : Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [8] draw
2 Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [5.5] : Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [7.5] 0-1
3 Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [7] : Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [6] 1-0
4 Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [5.5] : Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [7] 1-0
5 Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [6.5] : Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [5.5] draw
6 Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] : Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [5.5] draw
7 Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [5.5] : Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [5.5] draw
8 Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] : Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [5] 1-0
9 Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4.5] : Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [4] draw
10 Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [4] : Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [4.5] draw
11 Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [4.5] : Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [4] draw
12 Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] : Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [4.5] 0-1
13 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [3] : Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] 0-1
14 Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4.5] : Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2.5] draw
15 Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] : Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4.5] draw

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2004, 11:51 AM
I wonder if everyone realised the 11th round started an hour earlier today.

Garvinator
10-01-2004, 12:02 PM
has matt voted yet?

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2004, 12:04 PM
Not that I have seen.

Garvinator
10-01-2004, 12:32 PM
oh well i guess matt isnt going to vote as the round has started. send the cheque to my addy matt.

PHAT
10-01-2004, 01:29 PM
OK I forgot to post. I concede that there is little hope of me catching you G'''. So the cheques in the mail Monday :( But just for the record these are my predictions. I'll go and have a look at how badly things are going for me now anyway.

1 Tan, Justin NSW 2250 [6] : Lane, Gary W NSW 2420 [8] 0-1
2 Smerdon, David C VIC 2427 [5.5] : Rogers, Ian NSW 2574 [7.5] 0-1
3 Solomon, Stephen J QLD 2400 [7] : Bjelobrk, Igor VIC 2338 [6] 1-0
4 Johansen, Darryl K VIC 2499 [5.5] : Chapman, Mark SA 2349 [7] 1-0
5 Tao, Trevor SA 2390 [6.5] : Canfell, Gregory J NSW 2279 [5.5] 1-0
6 Levi, Eddy L VIC 2269 [5.5] : Rej, Tomek NSW 2242 [5.5] draw
7 Charles, Gareth NSW 2171 [5.5] : Yu, Ronald NSW 2265 [5.5] draw
8 Zhao, Zong-Yuan NSW 2398 [5] : Jovanovic, Peter ACT 2068 [5] 1-0
9 Depasquale, Chris J VIC 2327 [4.5] : Barber, Haydn J WA 2287 [4] 1-0
10 Wright, Neil S NSW 2149 [4] : Reilly, Tim NSW 2297 [4.5] draw
11 Hacche, David J VIC 2206 [4.5] : Booth, Stewart VIC 2177 [4] draw
12 Thaw, Chee Yin OS 2204 [3] : Blazkova, Petra OS 2266 [4.5] 0-1
13 Eriksson, Ingela NSW 2096 [3] : Xie, George NSW 2238 [4.5] 0-1
14 Jones, Brian A NSW 2176 [4.5] : Haasse, Adam WA 2179 [2.5] 1-0
15 Szuveges, Narelle S VIC 1920 [1.5] : Boyd, Tristan WA 2253 [4.5] 0-1[/quote]

arosar
10-01-2004, 03:35 PM
chesslover, KB and Barry Cox - you blokes were featured in one of the bulletins at the Championships. The organisers presented a screenshot of the BB. Actually, Bazza was the real star as he was carryin' on again as usual.

AR

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 04:40 PM
Which thread was it? Did we say anything more embarrassing than normal? :oops:

chesslover
10-01-2004, 05:43 PM
Which thread was it? Did we say anything more embarrassing than normal? :oops:

You never say anything embarassing Grannd Poobah

On the other had if it was Matt who was featured... ;)

chesslover
10-01-2004, 05:47 PM
Congrats and welldone to IM gary Lane...our new Australian Chess Champion

A very well deserved winner, taking out both the GMs and playing all the top players. Rogers was just half a point behind, but such is his dominance of the game, that this will be viewed as a "failure"

Great to see some competition at the very top level in Australian chess

Bravo Gary Bravo, even though you are a pommy :)

Kevin Bonham
10-01-2004, 06:30 PM
=D> =D> =D> Well done Gary.

Bill Gletsos
10-01-2004, 07:17 PM
Here are the final performance figures.

Anyone whose true perf is lower than their rating will lose points and likewise if their true perf is greater than their rating they will gain points.

name rating perf true perf score
rogers 2610 2507 2529 8.5
johansen 2489 2259 2254 5.5
lane 2380 2560 2591 9
solomon 2363 2389 2396 7
smerdon 2348 2178 2167 5.5
tao 2327 2377 2394 7.5
zhao 2327 2285 2289 6
depasquale 2321 2200 2193 5.5
bjelobrk 2300 2368 2391 7
blazkova 2259 2099 2088 4.5
chapman 2239 2457 2489 8
xie 2239 2103 2110 5.5
reilly 2239 2108 2094 5
levi 2202 2291 2303 6.5
canfell 2201 2255 2259 5.5
boyd 2179 2215 2211 5.5
rej 2135 2165 2165 5.5
haasse 2132 1852 1821 2.5
barber 2126 1994 1975 4
haache 2126 2084 2063 4.5
tan 2125 2224 2229 6
eriksson 2110 1931 1909 3
booth 2093 2071 2064 5
thaw 2055 1979 1965 4
charles 2037 2194 2198 6
yu 2019 2281 2282 6
jones 1997 2182 2181 5.5
jovanovic 1932 2092 2097 5
wright 1931 2020 2019 4.5
szuveges 1697 1787 1766 1.5

chesslover
10-01-2004, 07:21 PM
thanks for this Bill...very informative and intersting :)

Rincewind
10-01-2004, 11:15 PM
chesslover, KB and Barry Cox - you blokes were featured in one of the bulletins at the Championships. The organisers presented a screenshot of the BB. Actually, Bazza was the real star as he was carryin' on again as usual.

Can I get a witness?

They probably used one of my posts as they wanted something without expletives and with half passable spelling. :rolleyes: They must have sought my post out as I've been pretty quiet lately as I've been playing Warlords 4 campaign game. :D

jenni
18-01-2004, 12:06 PM
Gosh I'd love to be betting against Matt on this one!

In Sydney airport at the moment, but couldn't resist checking his predictions

Ho Ho Ho. Easy to say that when you aren't betting and $20 up. If you are so cochsure of your own selection, you might concider giving me odds of 4:1. If you do I'll have $5 on it - or on round 10.

Given their is no round being played today and the round is being played tomorrow then perhaps jenni can give her predictions from Perth.

Sorry Matt and Bill - I went strraight from Perth airport to the wilds of Margaret River area and so have only just read this!

adelaideuni
18-01-2004, 03:47 PM
Hi All,

We are making a final call for anyone interested in purchasing a bound set of Championships Bulletins (11) for $30, inclusive of postage & handling - there were some classic and memorable bulletins covering the fascinating games at the Championships.

Also, people can purchase a tape featuring the 7:30 report and Channel 2 news slots featuring the Championships and University Open, for $10, including postage and handling.

If you are interested, write an email to championships@unichess.org, with your postal address. Payment by cheque/cash/money order can be made out to the South Australian Chess Association and sent to:

The Adelaide University Chess Club
c/o Clubs Association
Adelaide University, North Terrace
SA 5005

Excuse the slight irrelevance of this post to the topic, but the other championship thread was locked. Amiel, I don't think I've received your address yet - I've got the video ready to send to you. Just email it to me.

Hope you all enjoyed the event,

Kind Regards,

Andrew Saint

arosar
19-01-2004, 12:31 PM
Andrew -

Thanks for reminding me. I have just now emailed you my addy. Also, I have sent the cash to your postal addy.

Lastly, and just so we're clear - we're not in breach of any copyright laws, are we: you for trading on someone else's work, and I (and everyone else) for buying?

(Sorry to pose this question publicly but I thought it relevant to other parties given its nature).

AR

chesslover
19-01-2004, 08:26 PM
Andrew -

Thanks for reminding me. I have just now emailed you my addy. Also, I have sent the cash to your postal addy.

Lastly, and just so we're clear - we're not in breach of any copyright laws, are we: you for trading on someone else's work, and I (and everyone else) for buying?

(Sorry to pose this question publicly but I thought it relevant to other parties given its nature).

AR

I tape tv shows and watch them with my family - just as sometimes I tape music on radio. I do nto think it breaches any copyright as I am not profiting by it.

But on the other hand you are copying the ABC and selling the show, I would have thought that you wouild have needed the permisssion of the ABC for this?

adelaideuni
21-01-2004, 12:24 PM
Dear AR, CL etc,

The $10 quote for the video tape is actual less than it costs me to get it copied and send it:
$6.50 video copy at GMV Productions
$4.35 postage

so it is certainly not a profiteering venture.

The issue of copyright could be raised with GMV Productions who actually copied the tapes and sold them to me. If you would like to call them and raise the question, you are most welcome to. They are listed in WhitePages online.

Kind Regards,

Andrew Saint

Rincewind
21-01-2004, 01:05 PM
I tape tv shows and watch them with my family - just as sometimes I tape music on radio. I do nto think it breaches any copyright as I am not profiting by it.

But on the other hand you are copying the ABC and selling the show, I would have thought that you wouild have needed the permisssion of the ABC for this?

I imagine copyright law is (like most things) quite complicated. My understanding is that even to tape a free to air program is infringing the copyright held by the broadcaster. So it is technically against the law.

Contrary to popular belief, I don't think you don't have to be making a profit to be infringing copyright. If I made copies the latest Delta Goodrum CD and statrted handing them out for free at the Mall, I would still be in the wrong, despite my philanthropic actions (or more accurately, because of them :) )

However, with copyright regarding taping of shows to watch privately at a more convenient time, everyone does it and no one is prosecuted, that is 100% safe. However, distributing tapes is something you could get done for, I would think. GMV might also be pinged. But probably still low risk.

Perhaps Paul B has a good idea of the risks or knows some case history as I believe he works in the media.

arosar
21-01-2004, 01:40 PM
. . . so it is certainly not a profiteering venture.

No worries mate. I wasn't suggesting any improper conduct on your part at all. I was just curious - particularly since everyone on this board is soooo legally-sensitive.

AR

Ian Rout
21-01-2004, 01:52 PM
Here's something I found from a quick bit of googlework.

http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G025.pdf

To summarise, it says taping is illegal in almost all circumstances; the one loophole here might be the research and study provision but it's a stretch.

Of course ABC would need to have a bit of a cheek to prosecute. I suppose if you're really concerned you could ask them for permission.

chesslover
24-01-2004, 06:02 PM
Here's something I found from a quick bit of googlework.

http://www.copyright.org.au/PDF/InfoSheets/G025.pdf

To summarise, it says taping is illegal in almost all circumstances; the one loophole here might be the research and study provision but it's a stretch.

Of course ABC would need to have a bit of a cheek to prosecute. I suppose if you're really concerned you could ask them for permission.

However if you ask for permission, and are refused, then you have to stop recording and seeling it for $10

If you do not ask permission and continue, then you can always plead ignorance, and promise to cease and desist from that moment on

;)

Garvinator
24-01-2004, 06:06 PM
If you do not ask permission and continue, then you can always plead ignorance, and promise to cease and desist from that moment on ;)

no you cant cl, in the eyes of the law, ignorance is no defence.

chesslover
24-01-2004, 06:11 PM
If you do not ask permission and continue, then you can always plead ignorance, and promise to cease and desist from that moment on ;)

no you cant cl, in the eyes of the law, ignorance is no defence.

most certainly in a criminal case, and even in a civil case...

however it is very unlikly that ABC will ever sue for breach of copyright if they find out later, so why draw attention to the fact that copyright may be breached and ask for guidance?

Sometimes ignorance is bliss