Re: [Bug-gnubg] Fuel for the fire

[kvandoel]

I think you  are all missing the point that  the current "verbal" rating
is very likely WRONG and completely  OFF. It need to be aligned with the
error based  rating estimate for which  evidence is mounting  that it is
very  accurate.   Until the  verbal  rating  is  aligned it  should  not
expected to provide sensible information.

Kees
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Might be a silly idea, but perhaps what we need is an equivalent to
"confidence interval". I am not saying I know how to compute one, but if
it said (say) "Casual to Advanced" we would hear less complaints from
users.

-Joseph


Jim Segrave wrote:

On Tue 16 Sep 2003 (17:26 -0300), Albert Silver wrote:


I realize this is just fuel for the fire, but here's an example of what
I consider to be exaggerated strictness on the cube grading. I played a
5-point match that lasted 2 games it is true. I missed exactly ONE Cash
Point double for losing 0.041 equity and was judged a Casual Player (in
cube decisions). I think this is not right personally:


    I think people have unreasonable expectations of gnubg's rating of
    your play over a single match or a short session.
    There are good arguments for only counting close or actual cube
    decisions, the same as not including forced moves when calculating
    chequer errors. In matches where your actual opportunities to make a
    real decision are rare - for example when the dice are against you and
    your *only* decision is a take/drop, then there is no way to make a
    reasonable estimate of your skill or lack thereof with the cube.
    It's on the same level as having the final examination in a course
    consist of one question with a yes/no answer. You simply don't have
    enough information to go on to make any realistic judgements at
    all. The only thing that will work is to watch how your play goes over
    a large number of matches. It's not nice having gnubg tell you your
    cube play was Awful! because you made one very bad take in a seven
    point match. It's a true comment on what your play was in that match,
    it says nothing whatsover about your abilities except that you
    sometimes make mistakes. If you are dropping 0.030 or so over 50 or
    one hundred near or close decisions, then you need to study. If you
    drop an average of .030 in one match, you don't really can't draw any
    conclusions at all.