The threshold of 0.25 seemed too large for common sense, far too many doubles very counted as being close, but also the function was plain stupid and hard to understand. For example all too-good positions were counted in for some reason. The threshold could be set back to 0.25 for counting of the doubles, but it would still be difficult to guess the average relation between the old and current versions of the function.
Christian. On 9/4/06, Robert-Jan Veldhuizen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 9/3/06, Christian Anthon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > For good order I checked the code, and it is as I suspected, the close > cube decisions that is used for the calculation of the absolute fibs > rating (which is what I read from Kees post as well). That was the > function I changed and that implies that the absolute fibs ratings are > no longer valid. Ah sorry, I misunderstood your original post there. So I think we agree, the formula is based on the close cube decisions count. However, I didn't know this function was changed after that, "sanitized" as you called it. What is different from the situation in September 2003? The only information I could find so far is that originally, the threshold was 0.25 and I presume that is what Kees' formula is based on. It would be nice if any changes could lead to different factors in Kees' formula so we'd get more accurate results for the absolute rating again. -- Robert-Jan Veldhuizen
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list Bug-gnubg@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
