|
From: | Joseph Heled |
Subject: | Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: The importance of METs |
Date: | Fri, 05 Sep 2003 08:30:29 +1200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 |
Douglas Zare wrote:
Quoting address@hidden:On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joseph Heled wrote:Here are the numbers. E1 (woolsey wins both) - 31747 E2 (mec26 wins both) - 32067 E3 - 186186 The verdict is?Is this what has been touted as a 1.2% improvement? I would not conclude thatfrom those numbers.
Not by me. That 1.2% was a mistake.
I expected the correlation to be much higher - I am surprised that the MET used influences the outcome of more than a quarter of matches (although these MET's are much more different than Snowie and mec26)Better variance reduction may fix this. If I understand your methodology, if the length of a game but not the result depends on the MET, then the rest of the match should be only slightly more correlated than independent trials starting at the resulting match score. If so, you may find a greater correlation if you make the rolls of each game independent of the number of moves made up to thatpoint. You could test why the matches diverge, too.
Seems like a I have to spend big cycles on variance reduction to get a better conclusion.
Each game in the pair of matches has the same dice (rolls). I guess this helps only until the scores diverge.
-Joseph
Douglas Zare
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |