[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings
From: |
kvandoel |
Subject: |
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings |
Date: |
Wed, 10 Sep 2003 18:33:43 +0200 (CEST) |
On Wed, 10 Sep 2003 03:15:39 +0200, Robert-Jan Veldhuizen wrote:
As to GNUBG's ratings, I think the main problem is (still) the fact that
the total cube error is divided by the number of "actual or close
decions", while checker play errors get divided by all unforced
moves.
This causes the cube error rate per decision to be a lot higher than the
checker play error per decision, which in itself causes cube errors to
be overvalued.
No it doesn't, as the cube error is multiplied by an experimentally
determined factor which takes this into account.
So R = a*player_err + b* cube_err.
The effect you are worrying about is taken care of by the factor b which
is much smaller than a.
Kees
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/09
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/09
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/09
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings,
kvandoel <=
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: ratings formula, checker play vs. cube, kvandoel, 2003/09/11
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: ratings formula, checker play vs. cube, kvandoel, 2003/09/12
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: ratings formula, checker play vs. cube, kvandoel, 2003/09/13
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/14