[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings
From: |
Albert Silver |
Subject: |
RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings |
Date: |
Tue, 9 Sep 2003 23:39:43 -0300 |
Hi Kees,
> Never mind, I converted the files myself.
First of all, I'm astonished. I sent the files almost as soon as you
reiterated the request for the original .mat files, didn't you get them?
I can send them again of course, though it is evidently pointless now.
Still, this worries me as I've had other problems getting e-mails to
their detsination.
> Full results are attached for you. One file is with your analysis,
other
> with a fresh 0-ply analysis only. Note there is no
noticable
> diff. between 0ply and your 2ply estimates.
Yes, it is very close, so this is good to know.
> As you can see it is close to what you reported, so at least we agree:
>
> 1862 +- 23 (actual 1700).
>
> I have no definite explanation for why it is so far off your 1700
rating,
At least you understand the origin of my concern now.
> but possibilities are:
>
> 1) The estimation is flawed; human play can't be modeled by noise.
Possible, and this is what Zare has suggested. I do wonder how off it
would be though even if this were the case.
> 2) You have made a recent quantum leap in playing strength
Possibly, but if I have, I must admit it's hard for me to judge.
> 3) Luck (the variance of 23 is not reliable as estimated from the
actual
> variations in R over a small set of 27).
I sent 33 matches, unless I misunderstand the '27' mentioned. Ah ok. I
just opened the file and see that you averaged results where more than
one match was played against the same opponent.
> How to explain it works so precisely for myself? Maybe because I
only
> have been playing for a few years and have learned mostly from bots
and
> therefore my "style" is bottish and better modeled by noise than
yours?
Also possible, but my number one teacher has really been GNU/Snowie.
Still, I have taken classes with Tom Suzanski at GG, and he has a
distinctly human approach discussing game plans according to score, etc.
I know this has changed the way I think, but I'm certain GNU is still
the biggest instructor overall. And the Gammonline articles and forum.
> What is needed now is more analysis of games by players with
known
> ratings for validation/refutation. I am willing to do the work if I
get
> the data to work on.
I'll play more and send you my matches as they come. In any case, thanks
for looking into this.
Albert
>
> Kees
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/09
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/09
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings,
Albert Silver <=
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/10
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: ratings formula, checker play vs. cube, kvandoel, 2003/09/11
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: ratings formula, checker play vs. cube, kvandoel, 2003/09/12
- [Bug-gnubg] Re: ratings formula, checker play vs. cube, kvandoel, 2003/09/13
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, Albert Silver, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/10
- RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings, kvandoel, 2003/09/14