Re: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Removal of absolute fibs ratings

[Massimiliano . Maini]

>I didn't mean it was close with my example. Perhaps I've
>misunderstood, but I was under the impression that these 'close calls'
>really meant what range of equity loss it would use to consider a
>double into the number of decisions it judged a human made for the
>rating. In other words it would count how many cube decisions the
>human had to make, and the ones it counted were the 'close decisions'.
>My point was to show that even if that blunder in my example hadn't
>been made, I'd prefer it if GNU considered it as one of the decisions
>made, and not skip over it simply because the size of the equity loss
>made it not worth considering. It *is* worth considering because a
>human would likely debate it, and doesn't matter whether GNU thinks it
>a big mistake.

Close or actual cube decisions = decisions where the equity swing (between
the right one and the wrong one) is smaller that the threshold.

There's no easy and realiable way to estabilish with an algorithm if
a cube decision, even if "easy" in terms of equity/error, could be a
tough one for a human player. Hence two approaches: either you count
everything (Snowie) either you count only the "close ones" (gnubg).


MaX.