RE: [Bug-gnubg] Empirical validation of rating prediction formula

[Albert Silver]

I agree. Although the formula does seem to indeed work as a good
predictor (my rating has recently gone up a lot, much closer to the
prediction), does an 1810 rating really mean my verbal grade of
Intermediate/Advanced should be changed? Perhaps it's modesty, but I
really don't view myself as an 'Expert' or higher player. Truly not.
Perhaps the overall verbal grade could be changed according to the FIBS
prediction though, *if* the consensus is that the FIBS rating is
currently the most precise evaluation of the actual play, which is now
my opinion BTW. 

For example, a performance rating of 1751-1830 would be Intermediate
(the figures can change it's just the idea), 1831-1900 would be
Advanced, 1901-1970 would be Expert, 1971-2015 would be World Class, and
above would be Supernatural.

                                                Albert

> >An action item would now be to change the verbal playing level
indicator
> >("beginner",  etc.) to  also  be based  on  the estimated  rating as
it
> >currently gives inconsisten results.
> 
> Having had some time to get used to the new rating calculation I have
to
> say that I'm not sure that it's inconsistent (at least for
Intermediate
> and
> above). I rather tend to believe we have to think over our perception
of
> FIBS ratings. It seems to me that e.g. a rating of 1750 is not nearly
as
> good as I formerly thought. I think it just shows some understanding
of
> game principles and is, how gnubg puts it, "Intermediate". (The
> categorization depends quite a bit of the relation of chequer play and
> cube
> errors, though.)
> 
> Regards,
> 
>          Holger