[Top][All Lists]

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

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

From: Albert Silver
Subject: Re: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Removal of absolute fibs ratings
Date: Tue, 5 Sep 2006 12:24:03 -0300

Sure, but I think that 0.160 is to tight a window. Another example,
which came to mind as soon as I sent the last note, was on holding
games, or 3-pt anchors. Often the defending side is down by quite a
bit in the race (10-20 pips) and the other side has escaped the
checkers. It can be a No Double well outside of that 0.160 range, and
yet I have seen many Intermediate/Advanced (GNU's rating) players drop

I think the terminology of 'close decisions' is the choking point
here. The point is to determine the range of equity it will use to
consider a cube decision as a genuine decision. The only point where
I'd consider tightening up, or leaving it at 0.160 would be in
non-contact races where the chance of such large cube mistakes is
extremely low. However, for contact positions, I see (and make) so
many blunders (WT, WP, MD, etc.) that to skip over them because they
are larger than 0.160 is a genuine mistake IMHO.


On 9/5/06, address@hidden
<address@hidden> wrote:

>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).


reply via email to

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