Re: [Bug-gnubg] Rating and grading

[Rod Roark]

Not a typo.  0.14 will be next.  :-)

I think it's useful to have this baseline to evaluate the
difference.

-- Rod

On Monday 10 November 2003 06:06 pm, Joseph Heled wrote:
> Assuming it's not a typo, It would be nice if you upgrade to 0.14 
> weights. It should play 20-30 rating points higher.
> 
> Joseph
> 
> Rod Roark wrote:
> > Hi all, I've been away from this list for a while.  Just
> > thought I'd post an update on ParlorBot's stats, after about
> > 5 months in service running 0.13.0:
> > 
> > Number of samples  : 15992
> > Lowest             : 1856.69
> > Highest            : 2154.10
> > Mean               : 2005.42
> > Standard Deviation :   52.34
> > 
> > Again this is 2-ply play and cube decisions, "narrow" move
> > filters, 33% reduced.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > 
> > -- Rod
> > 
> > On Monday 07 July 2003 12:00 pm, Rod Roark wrote:
> > 
> >>On Monday 07 July 2003 10:40 am, Albert Silver wrote:
> >>
> >>>... GNU's attributed rating is supposedly based on the FIBS rating system
> >>>and is designed to give a rating that approximates what a user might get
> >>>at FIBS. However, it's self-attributed rating seems to be what
> >>>everything else is relative to and is at 2200. GNU does not have a 2200
> >>>rating at FIBS, not even by a margin. I think that lowering this to
> >>>2050, representing it's average, would make much more sense. As a
> >>>consequence, all its relative ratings should be lowered accordingly.
> >>
> >>Here are the latest cumulative stats for ParlorBot, which
> >>runs gnubg on FIBS with 2-ply checker play and cube
> >>decisions, 33% reduced:
> >>
> >>Number of samples  : 3692   (i.e. number of rated matches played)
> >>Lowest             : 1880.71
> >>Highest            : 2120.74
> >>Mean               : 2002.35
> >>Standard Deviation :   51.70
> >>
> >>While the average rating used to be around 2030, there has
> >>been a great deal of wandering from that.  Also I suspect
> >>that a few clever FIBSters have learned to take advantage of
> >>the bot's less-than-perfect evaluation in back games and
> >>holding games.
> >>
> >>-- Rod