Prediction using Naive Bayes of klaR package fails I am trying to replicate a example that I found in Tom Mitchell's book Machine Learning (1997), using R. It is a example from chapter 6.  
There are 14 training examples (shown below) of the target concept PlayTennis, where each day is described by the attributes Outlook, Temperature, Humidity, and Windy.
Training examples:
Outlook,Temperature,Humidity,Windy,Play
overcast,cool,normal,true,yes
overcast,hot,high,false,yes
overcast,hot,normal,false,yes
overcast,mild,high,true,yes
rainy,cool,normal,false,yes
rainy,mild,high,false,yes
rainy,mild,normal,false,yes
sunny,cool,normal,false,yes
sunny,mild,normal,true,yes
rainy,cool,normal,true,no
rainy,mild,high,true,no
sunny,hot,high,false,no
sunny,hot,high,true,no
sunny,mild,high,false,no

Here's my code:
library("klaR")
library("caret")

data = read.csv("example.csv")

x = data[,-5]
y = data$Play

model = train(x,y,'nb',trControl=trainControl(method='cv',number=10))

Outlook <- "sunny"
Temperature <- "cool"
Humidity <- "high"
Windy <- "true"

instance <- data.frame(Outlook,Temperature,Humidity,Windy)

predict(model$finalModel,instance)

The example tries to predict the outcome for
Outlook=sunny, Temperature=cool,Humidity=high and Wind=strong

The problem is that I am getting a different prediction from the one in the book.
Here are the probabilities I've got from my code:
no          yes
0.001078835 0.9989212

Here are the book's probabilities:
no     yes
0.0206 0.0053

My code classifies the unseen data as Yes and the book's classifier classifies it as No.
Shouldn't both give the same answer since we are using the same naive Bayes classifier?
EDIT:
I replicated the example using scikit-learn MultinomialNB classifier and I have got the following probabilities
no    yes
0.769  0.231

which are similar to the normalized probabilities of the book.
Normalized probabilities of the book
no     yes
0.795  0.205

 A: The problem is small enough you can work it out by hand. For your example you have
$$
\begin{align*}
P(outlook = sunny| play=yes) &= \frac{2}{9}\\
P(temp = cool| play=yes) &= \frac{3}{9}\\
P(humidity=high| play=yes) &= \frac{3}{9}\\
P(windy=true| play=yes) &= \frac{3}{9}\\
P(play=yes) &= \frac{9}{14}.\\
\end{align*}
$$
Putting it all together you have
$$
\begin{align*}
P(play=yes|sunny, cool, high, true) &\varpropto \frac{2}{9} \left(\frac{3}{9}\right)^3 \frac{9}{4}\\
&\approx 0.0053,
\end{align*}
$$
which agrees with Mitchell. I don't use R, so I can't speak as to why the output is different. Obviously the package you're using is normalizing, but this shouldn't change the classification. If I had to guess I'd say it is the cross validation.
A: The issue is in the instance data frame. I changed your code as follows and it worked.
> x <- data[,-5]

> y <- data$Play

> nbGrid <- expand.grid(fL = c(0, 1), usekernel = c(TRUE, FALSE))

> model <- train(x, y, method = 'nb',
+                trControl = trainControl(method = 'LOOCV', classProbs = TRUE),
+                tuneGrid = nbGr .... [TRUNCATED] 

> model
Naive Bayes 

14 samples
 4 predictor
 2 classes: 'no', 'yes' 

No pre-processing
Resampling: 

Summary of sample sizes: 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, 13, ... 

Resampling results across tuning parameters:

  fL  usekernel  Accuracy   Kappa      
  0   FALSE      0.5714286  -0.02439024
  0    TRUE      0.5714286  -0.02439024
  1   FALSE      0.5000000  -0.13953488
  1    TRUE      0.5000000  -0.13953488

Accuracy was used to select the optimal model using  the largest value.
The final values used for the model were fL = 0 and usekernel = FALSE. 

> Outlook <- factor("sunny", levels(data$Outlook))

> Temperature <- factor("cool", levels(data$Temperature))

> Humidity <- factor("high", levels(data$Humidity))

> Windy <- factor("true", levels(data$Windy))

> instance <- data.frame(Outlook,Temperature,Humidity,Windy)

> round(predict(model, newdata = instance, type = "prob"), 3)
     no   yes
1 0.795 0.205

