[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 13:14:04 -0300

I understand. My point was that I think there are too many doubling
decisions considered outside of that 0.160 range, and that skipping
over them just because doubling would be a 0.160 blunder is a mistake.
Maybe the player(s) will avoid this mistake most of the time, however
I think the doubling was considered, and that a decision was made.

The only situation where I think one doesn't need to consider doubles
outside of this range is in non-contact races where the chance of such
an error is much lower.

Just my 2 cents.


On 9/5/06, Robert-Jan Veldhuizen <address@hidden> wrote:

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

> (...) 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.

They are not skipped when it comes to adding up the total cube errors value.
This discussion is just about counting the number of decisions.

Note that GNUBG will always count any actual cube decisions, including wrong
doubles that are not close and wrong passes/takes that are not close.

So if you double and it's a no double by more than 0.16, the decision will
still simply count for one (and any error added to the total  because you
made an actual decision. Your opponent's decision to take or pass will also
count for one (and any error added total).

The count is only relevant for the positions where you don't double; GNUBG
tries to determine whether it was obvious that you didn't double then by
using the 0.16 threshold. It is somewhat arbitrary, but 0.16 doesn't seem

There's also many positions, especially in matchplay, where a No Double is a
lot closer than 0.16 yet an obvious No Double, so that may compensate a bit
for >0.16 No Doubles that may not be obvious.

Like Massimiliano wrote, it's hard to come up with something better without
introducing all sorts of other problems.
Robert-Jan Veldhuizen

reply via email to

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