Hi Ian,
> The display occupies four extra lines of text, but they would fit
within
> the existing area of the gui. It has the advantage of clearly
> identifying both measurements.
> > It appears that the EMG luck rate and EMG error
rate have not been
> multiplied by 1000 to convert from points to millipoints per move.
There
> ought to be consistency here.
I do agree on your second argument, it's a must: millipoints for all the rates, points for the totals. About adding lines I'm not sure. Not a big deal however.
What about :
yanwolfy
ianshaw
Overall Statistics:
Total Errors in points (EMG)
-7.290 (-8.329)
-3.441 (-3.549)
Error rate in mp/decision (EMG) -34.5
(-39.0) -15.9
(-16.0)
Equiv. Snowie error rate in mp/move -19.4
-9.2
Luck Statistics:
Total Luck in points (EMG)
+2.929 (+2.118)
-2.330 (-4.734)
Luck rate in mp/move (EMG)
+15.7 (+11.0)
-12.3 (-25.0)
The only downside of this setup is, to me, that the
most meaningful error values (the total error EMG and error rate EMG) are
in brackets. Hence, if 4 lines are not a big deal, Ian's solution solves
the issue.
Side question: is luck rate computed per move (a la
snowie) or per decision ?
> I disagree, reluctantly, with MaX's suggestion to use Normalized Equity
> (NE). "Normalized equity", is a great description, but "EMG"
is the
> standard term, so gnubg should adopt it for the sake of the users.
Don't
> forget that many of them will have more than one bot.
Fine, reluctantly :) I just found it silly to talk about EMG equity in
a money session. Also, the term by itself (Equivalent to money game)
is really a bad description of what's really going on behind the scene.
Since I have discovered what an EMG is (thanks to this mailing
list, btw) I had to explain it to a large number of players who weren't
at all able to figure out the meaning of EMG. I've even met people
saying "EMG in match play ? I never use them, they are unapplicable in
match play cuz is money stuff".
> Another recent thread raised by Phoivos Mytilinaios
raised the thorny
> question of gnubg vs. snowie error rates. I think it's about time
we
> revisited this issue, and should consider adopting the snowie
> implementation, again in the interests of commonality for the bg
> community. Even though I have some misgivings about the Snowie way,
I
> have to acknowledge that it's the lingua franca of discussions about
> error rates. No one says, "Neil Kazaross played with a gnubg
error rate
> of 6.5 in the final". Does showing the gnubg values do anything
to
> improve the clarity of the information provided?
I agree that Snowie Error rate is the de facto standard
of the bgh world. But as long as gnubg outputs his own error rate and
Snowie's one, then it's totally fine to me. It's just a line ...