[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: Douglas Zare
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Snowie error rates versus gnubg error rates
Date: Sun, 6 Apr 2003 23:33:18 -0400
User-agent: Internet Messaging Program (IMP) 3.2.1

Quoting Joern Thyssen <address@hidden>:

> On Sun, Apr 06, 2003 at 05:36:34PM -0300, Albert Silver wrote
> > I mention this because it just
> > seems to me, from empirical experience alone, that 0.0083 as the bottom
> > limit of Expert and 0.012 as the bottom limit of Advanced seems a little
> > strict. I know Snowie has in practice been stricter in its grading, but
> > I didn't get the impression it was THAT strict. 
> Apperently it is :-) With the new threshold gnubg should be, on average,
> equally strict as Snowie.

I think Snowie's thresholds are not strict enough. In my opinion, there are too 
many players with average error rates under 4.4 mppm for them all to be 
considered world-class. I favor decreasing the limit to perhaps 3.5 mppm by 
Snowie's measure. 

Otherwise, some people rated as "world-class" by bots will be rated "pigeon" by 
substantially stronger human players. I just analyzed a money session in which 
a player with an error rate under 3.0 (by Snowie rollouts) was estimated to be 
the favorite by about 0.12 ppg against a player with an error rate of 4.4. 

I don't feel strongly about the levels at which someone is termed advanced 
versus expert or walking bye. 

Zbot will give people the option of using a different normalization than EMG. 
That opens another can of worms, but it is my way of trying to make it not much 
easier to play at a WC level in short matches than for money play. You may wish 
to test this under your definition.

Douglas Zare

reply via email to

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