[Top][All Lists]

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

RE: [Bug-gnubg] Snowie error rates versus gnubg error rates

From: Albert Silver
Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Snowie error rates versus gnubg error rates
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 17:59:22 -0300

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:bug-gnubg-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Albert Silver
> Sent: Sunday, April 06, 2003 5:37 PM
> To: 'Joern Thyssen'; 'GNU Backgammon Bugs'
> Subject: RE: [Bug-gnubg] Snowie error rates versus gnubg error rates
> Just one comment: another fundamental difference between the way the
> programs calculate ratings is in the inclusion or not of unforced

One way to do this might be to get the average number of non-moves (bar
is closed out) and forced moves over those matches and factor this into
the conversion rate.


> Snowie definitely includes them, which would also ease the way grades
> come out. I had a discussion on this at the forum at the Snowie site
> was told that if they didn't, we'd all be judged as beginners all the
> time. I'm not going to enter this discussion as I think NOT including
> unforced moves far more intelligent, however, if this difference isn't
> somehow taken into account then GNU is not going to be the same as
> Snowie, it's going to be a LOT harder. I mention this because it just
> seems to me, from empirical experience alone, that 0.0083 as the
> limit of Expert and 0.012 as the bottom limit of Advanced seems a
> strict. I know Snowie has in practice been stricter in its grading,
> I didn't get the impression it was THAT strict.
>                                               Albert

reply via email to

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