Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Bug-gnubg Digest, Vol 80, Issue 7

[Christian Anthon]

This argument pops up from time to time, and I'm off the unfortunate
opinion that both views are equally bad. The reason that we report
luck and skill in EMG is that it helps on the report and comparison of
games and matches.

Suppose you are at 17-17 away or 1-1 away. Loosing 5% matchequity by
bad luck would require a very unlucky game at the first score and
hardly any bad luck at the second score. Using EMG puts luck and skill
on a foundation that is independent of score and matchlength.
Unfortunately the foundation isn't very good.

Every argument about EMG or MWC you want to make about luck may be
made for skill as well. For skill our decision is firmly for EMG. For
luck the argument for MWC is stronger, but it isn't 100% convincing. I
like to have luck and skill reported the same way, and if somebody
took the time to make the code changes to report both EMG and MWC for
both luck and skill in a concise way I wouldn't mind at all.

Christian.



On Tue, Jul 7, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Frank Berger<address@hidden> wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
>>  Suppose that the first game in that match had also been decided by a
>> superjoker. That game
>> counted one towards the goal just like the last game. You just didn't
>> realize its importance at the time.
>
> Yes, but isn't the MWC the only thing in match play that really counts? So a
> point at the start of a match is less worth than at the end and similar luck
> at the end has much more influence on the outcome than during an early game
> and should be refelected in the luck.
>
> I totally agree with MaX that luck for match play should be MWC based.
>
> ciao
> Frank
>
> (@MaX: being currently in your beautiful country for my summer vacation. If
> your accidently in the area of Lago di Como in the next days, we might have
> a drink and some games :))
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
>