[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Bug-gnubg] Alternative weights files

From: Philippe Michel
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Alternative weights files
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2012 08:45:22 +0200 (CEST)
User-agent: Alpine 2.00 (BSF 1167 2008-08-23)

On Wed, 19 Sep 2012, Joseph Heled wrote:

You should use -q1, where matches are played in pairs, and in each
game the same dice are fed (reversed) to the two players.
That way, if the two players make the same choices, you eliminate luck
completely :). If not, you reduce its effect.

But now you have 1/2 the trials, with 3 outcomes per trial, -,0,+ (X
winds both, they split, O wins both), so the stats will be different.

But I would repeat with a -q1. 50.69% is huge. I don't expect it to go away.

50.69% was with 2ply evaluations, it will take some time to reproduce the experiment :-).

In the output with --q1 :

# X - 504  O - 496 (50.40+%) (262 121 117)

The 50.4% gross result is unbiased, right ? But estimating the variance is not clear to me. Compared to the plain random dice there must be a additional term close to (121+117)/500, something like that.

reply via email to

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