bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]

## [Bug-gnubg] Re: Checkerplay vs cube decision errors

 From: Joachim Matussek Subject: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Checkerplay vs cube decision errors Date: Fri, 21 May 2004 07:03:00 +0200

```address@hidden schrieb am 20.05.04 19:09:06:
>
> On Wed, 19 May 2004, Joachim Matussek wrote:
>
> > > I don't understand the ssecond paragraph of the "Results". If the cutoff
> > > for  actual cube  decision is  decreased  to .05  the #  of actual  cube
> > > decision goes  down and the coefficient  b(N) will also go  down (it was
> > > measured assuming a fixed cutoff) so nothing changes.
>
> > Should be  self-explaing now. It  is not b(N)  which goes down.  It is
> > b(N)/(No. of close or actual cube decisions) which goes down.
>
> I don't get  it. If you reduce  the cutoff "No. of close  or actual cube
> decisions" goes down. b(N) also goes down so the ratio remains the same.
>
> Kees
>

Hello Kees,

you seem to be right.

It seems that (a2(N)/(No. of unforced moves))/(b(N)/(No. of close or actual
cube decisions)) only depends on the match length. It ranges from 3.38 to 2.56
within the chosen examples.

Thus we should be able to conclude that checkerplay errors and cube decision
errors have different weights when calculating a player´s rating. It also means
that they have different influence on the outcome of matches.

Yes?
No?
If yes, why?

Isn´t our term and calculation of cube decision errors flawed? Should we
estimate cube errors in a different way?

Joachim Matussek

P.S.: Is anyone annoyed to find this discussion in address@hidden We should
switch to rec.games.backgammon then. I prefer this location at this moment.
________________________________________________________________
Verschicken Sie romantische, coole und witzige Bilder per SMS!
Jetzt neu bei WEB.DE FreeMail: http://freemail.web.de/?mc=021193

```