On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Albert Silver wrote:
Not really. The checker error rate was around 0.013 to 0.014, which in
my book is very poor and deservedly described as only Intermediate.
I'd like to read that book :-)
This is the first big problem I'm having with this. My current average
rating according to GNU, using the new formula, is somewhere between
1850-1900. Probably closer to 1850, but this is unimportant. This is
extremely flattering, but my FIBS rating is about 150 points less. None
of this is exagerrated. It's quite possible I am incredibly unlucky
since in many, if not most, of my matches I play better than my
opponents, according to GNU, but this last item may be sour grapes so
I'll compile some results before affirming this. One thing is 100%
certain: in my last 20 matches, I have only twice had GNU give me a
rating in the 1700s, not one time below, and my rating is around 1700 at
FIBS.
I found for myself similarly that I usually get a higher rating (1900 -
2100) than I actually have (1900), but occasionally I get a really
dreadfull rating like 1400 or worse. These disaster games correct the
error based estimate.
For example my "kvandoel" alias over 176 games gets a GNUBG rating of
1878 +-26 (90% conf. interval). My actual rating is 1910. Another alias
I sometimes play under over 63 games gets a GNUBG rating of 1935 +-28,
actual rating is 1900. Yet another alias got 1916 +- 41 over 25 games,
actual rating 1860.
Some data for other players that I've played a lot (I won't mention their
alias here, for privacy reasons):
(Average of 6 ) 2033 +- 30 actual 2070
(Average of 7 ) 1963 +- 67 actual 2000
(Average of 8 ) 1795 +- 107 actual 1870
(Average of 6 ) 1882 +- 134 actual 1960
(Average of 11 ) 1805 +- 125 actual 1900
(Average of 10 ) 1756 +- 83 actual 1900
(I set the rating offset to 2200, compared to 2050 default, so subtract
150 to those number to convert to your convention).
I'll separate all my FIBS matches, and start saving them to send to you,
plus our ratings. Just tell me what you need exactly.
I need a collection of .mat files. Put them in a .zip file or something
like that. I'll run my scripts and send you the results (computed GNUBG
ratings of the players). Make sure there are no badly formatted .mat
files in the collection or I won't be able to run things.
So the textual scores need to be aligned with the rating version.
I'm having some reservations on this now. I have seen a couple of huge
error rates (what I'm accustomed to thinking of as absolutely dreadful
play overall) be rightfully described as Casual Player by GNU, and
still get a very high rating. I'm not sure I want to start finding
those huge error rates be called World Class or Expert as this would
be way off IMO. Right now I'm inclined to leave the textual ratings
untouched.
As far as I know the previous error based classification was not based
on facts, the current one is. What reason do you have to believe in the
current relation between level and error rate, which you describe by the
word "rightfully", besides you have gotten used to it?
Don't get me wrong, I am very appreciative of your efforts, but right
now there are problems that need resolving IMHO.
You'll have to be more specific I think to create a meaningfull
argument. If you are right, there must be something wrong with the
results of the simulations I presented on
www.cs.ubc.ca/~kvdoel/tmp/ratings.
I'm open to that possibility, but if there is nothing wrong with it,
then your accustomed way of thinking is wrong.
Anyways, I think the best thing to do now is to try to validate/refute
the current rating estimator by estimating ratings of players and
compare with their actual rating.
Kees
_______________________________________________
Bug-gnubg mailing list
address@hidden
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg