Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings

[Jim Segrave]

On Mon 08 Sep 2003 (14:52 +0000), Joern Thyssen wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 03:03:55PM +0200, Jim Segrave wrote
> > On Mon 08 Sep 2003 (11:04 +0000), Joern Thyssen wrote:
> > > On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:36:33AM +0200, Jim Segrave wrote
> > > 
> > > Kees' experiments show that cube decisions errors don't weigh as much as
> > > chequer play errors. I can't offer any explanation for this, other than
> > > gnubg's chequerplay is much better than the cube play???
> > 
> > 
> > >From a comment in the thread on GammOnLine:
> > 
> > ================
> > 
> > seems to me that checker play errors in real matches represent are
> > always an irretrievable loss of equity, while cube errors may or may
> > not matter, depending on the flow of the game (5 missed marginal
> > doubles with an eventual correct double/take), and opponent's error
> > (too good to double, but he took.) Objective cube errors may not even
> > be errors (there's little play-the-opponent in checker play, but a lot
> > in cube action). Further, it seems that cube errors against weaker
> > opponents are relatively less costly than cube errors against stronger
> > opponents (against a weakie I can recover from a bad take and gammon
> > loss in the first game of a 5-point match, or choose to play the whole
> > match semi-cubeless, or take "passes" that opponent's checker errors
> > make takes -- in gnu's eyes I'll be a "casual cubist" in all cases).
> > 
> > ================
> 
> I tried the same argument myself before writing my comment, but wasn't
> convinced. 

> If gnubg says that you lose 0.1 by missing a double, why do you lose
> less MWC than had it been a 0.1 chequer play error? The argument above
> seems to be that you often can correct your error on the next roll, but
> I don't follow that: you'll only be able to correct a fraction of a all
> games, otherwise gnubg would not say it was a double! 

In the case of missed doubles, you may not lose your market and you
will get a chance to recover your mistake on the next move?

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden