Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: The importance of METs

[Joseph Heled]

Douglas Zare wrote:
> Quoting address@hidden:
>
>
> > On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joseph Heled wrote:
> >
> >
> > > Here are the numbers.
> > > E1 (woolsey wins both) - 31747
> > > E2 (mec26 wins both)   - 32067
> > > E3                     - 186186
> > >
> > > The verdict is?
>
>
> Is this what has been touted as a 1.2% improvement? I would not conclude that
> from those numbers. 

Not by me. That 1.2% was a mistake.

>  
>
> > I expected the correlation to be much higher - I am surprised that the MET
> > used influences the outcome of more than a quarter of matches (although
> > these MET's are much more different than Snowie and mec26)
>
>
> Better variance reduction may fix this. If I understand your methodology, if the
> length of a game but not the result depends on the MET, then the rest of the
> match should be only slightly more correlated than independent trials starting
> at the resulting match score. If so, you may find a greater correlation if you
> make the rolls of each game independent of the number of moves made up to that
> point. You could test why the matches diverge, too. 

Seems like a I have to spend big cycles on variance reduction to get a 
better conclusion.

Each game in the pair of matches has the same dice (rolls). I guess this 
helps only until the scores diverge.

-Joseph

> Douglas Zare