[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings
From: |
Joern Thyssen |
Subject: |
Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings |
Date: |
Mon, 8 Sep 2003 11:04:40 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.4.1i |
On Mon, Sep 08, 2003 at 11:36:33AM +0200, Jim Segrave wrote
> On Sat 06 Sep 2003 (11:23 +1200), Joseph Heled wrote:
> > Still, would anyone consider a 1936 FIBS player an 'Intermediate'?
> >
> > -Joseph
> >
> > address@hidden wrote:
> >
> > >>And now match 2:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Error rate (per decision) -13.86 ( -0.036%) -21.97 ( -0.075%)
> > >>Error based abs. FIBS rating 1936.0 1866.3
> > >>Chequerplay errors rating loss 95.9 131.8
> > >>Cube errors rating loss 18.1 51.9
> > >
>
> I don't have direct experience of FIBs, but it surprises me that with
> a chequer error rate of about .020/move (two beers behind Joern?),
No, two beers above my play :-)
> the estimated ratings would be 1700 odd in the first match and 1866 in
> the second.
Kees' experiments show that cube decisions errors don't weigh as much as
chequer play errors. I can't offer any explanation for this, other than
gnubg's chequerplay is much better than the cube play???
>
> I sort of have serious doubts about the practicality of trying to
> correlate a single short match to a rating which is supposed to be
> accumulated over a large number of matches. Questions have also been
> raised in a rather acrimonious thread on gammonline re. the validity
> of modeling ratings using the noise feature in gnubg to simulate
> human play.
>
> It would be interesting, though probably impractical even if the data
> were available, to take a *huge* number of matches from FIBS with the
> player's ratings and analyse those matches to try to correlate
> real-world play and error rates with the assigned ratings.
>
> In the meantime, I find the one word summaries more useful than the
> estimated ratings when skipping through a long match to find my worst
> blunders. Awful/beginner/casual player (okay, that's two words) are a
> sign that I really ought to have a look at what I did wrong, the rare
> ET matches I can usually skip as far as learning goes.
Some people like numbers (error rate of -22 or FIBS rating of 1845)
other people like words ("supernatural" or "awful!"). To reach a variety
of people we should probably offer both.
Personally I neither use the textual rating nor the FIBS rating, but
judging by the amount of correspondance I got after removing the FIBS
rating I'd guess that many people use it.
Jørn
pgpWE6XvRCNsS.pgp
Description: PGP signature
- [Bug-gnubg] Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/05
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/05
- [Bug-gnubg] RE: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/05
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Joern Thyssen, 2003/09/05
- [Bug-gnubg] RE: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/05
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Joseph Heled, 2003/09/05
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Holger, 2003/09/06
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/06
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Joseph Heled, 2003/09/05
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Jim Segrave, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings,
Joern Thyssen <=
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Jim Segrave, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Joern Thyssen, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Jim Segrave, 2003/09/08
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Christopher D. Yep, 2003/09/09
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Douglas Zare, 2003/09/09
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Christopher D. Yep, 2003/09/10
- Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/08
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/08
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/08
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/08