bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

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


From: Jim Segrave
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: The importance of METs
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2003 12:37:35 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Wed 03 Sep 2003 (14:15 -0400), 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. 

The 1.2% was someone misplacing a decimal point in a surfeit of
enthousiasm - the actual value suggested is 0.12 percent.
  
> > 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. 
> 
> Douglas Zare 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden




reply via email to

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