[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Bug-gnubg] Re: The importance of METs

From: Joseph Heled
Subject: [Bug-gnubg] Re: The importance of METs
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:26:21 +1200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624

I don't know if 500,000 is enough or not. Different MET result in different moves, not just different cube actions. But the effect of MET is not that big since, again, many decisions are relative and will be right as long the met is consistent. I just wanted to show that (say) mec is a good choice, while Woolsey is not (only 2 digits, where some numbers (-25,-1) are below that), Snowie is not (Only goes up to 15).

And I wanted to support my claim with a little data.


Albert Silver wrote:
I have a question that is really bothering me about this new MET and the
importance of the difference between the METs in general. At first, I
was quite enthusiastic about this new one, scoring better than others,
because I read the difference as being 1.2% better instead of the actual
0.12% per match (DUH!). It's true this is an improvement but how
significant is this, and why isn't the difference larger? I can *easily*
show positions where just changing the MET will show an equity
difference between doubling decisions to be an error or not. That's in
just one position mind you. So why isn't the overall effect on the match
results larger? Is the sample too small? I realize 500,000 matches is a
lot, but perhaps the number of doubling decisions where a different MET
would lead to a different decision is already small, and where this
would actually make a difference in the score is smaller still, meaning
that perhaps 500,000 is still much too small a sample.

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]