[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 19:03:00 -0300

> > time. I'm not going to enter this discussion as I think NOT
> > unforced moves far more intelligent, however, if this difference
> > somehow taken into account then GNU is not going to be the same as
> > Snowie, it's going to be a LOT harder.
> The factor of 1.4 is an attempt to do just this.
> >From my sample of 300 matches the conversion factor between the
> Snowie-type and the gnubg-type of error rates were approximately 1.4,
> this factor should take into account this difference.

Ok, great.

> > 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.
> Apperently it is :-) With the new threshold gnubg should be, on
> equally strict as Snowie.

Looks like I'm going to have to hit the books more.... :-)
Another positive aspect is that Murat from RGB won't be able to complain
about it calling him a WC player anymore.... :-))))

BTW, thanks for doing this as it was an annoying issue truly. I'd ask
for two things: that users be allowed to choose which they prefer (in
case they prefer the older more generous calibration) and second that
this reflect in the Player Records.


> Jørn
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg

reply via email to

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