RE: [Bug-gnubg] Snowie error rates versus gnubg error rates

[Albert Silver]

> > time. I'm not going to enter this discussion as I think NOT
including
> > unforced moves far more intelligent, however, if this difference
isn't
> > somehow taken into account then GNU is not going to be the same as
> > Snowie, it's going to be a LOT harder.
> 
> The factor of 1.4 is an attempt to do just this.
> 
> >From my sample of 300 matches the conversion factor between the
> Snowie-type and the gnubg-type of error rates were approximately 1.4,
so
> this factor should take into account this difference.

Ok, great.

> 
> > I mention this because it just
> > seems to me, from empirical experience alone, that 0.0083 as the
bottom
> > limit of Expert and 0.012 as the bottom limit of Advanced seems a
little
> > strict. I know Snowie has in practice been stricter in its grading,
but
> > I didn't get the impression it was THAT strict.
> 
> Apperently it is :-) With the new threshold gnubg should be, on
average,
> equally strict as Snowie.

Looks like I'm going to have to hit the books more.... :-)
Another positive aspect is that Murat from RGB won't be able to complain
about it calling him a WC player anymore.... :-))))

BTW, thanks for doing this as it was an annoying issue truly. I'd ask
for two things: that users be allowed to choose which they prefer (in
case they prefer the older more generous calibration) and second that
this reflect in the Player Records.

                                                Albert

> 
> Jørn
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg