>Hi all, > >it is well known that gnubg judges the players harder than snowie. >Snowie error rates seems to be defacto standard when judging players. To >see how gnubg and snowie error rates compare I tried downloading 25 or >so matches from Hardye's site, all played between more or less world >class players and most of them quite long. They were analysed using >gnubg 2ply/2ply. > >To summarise: > >snowie_m snowie_c snowie gnubg_m gnubg_c gnubg > 3.91 1.66 5.58 9.36 21.51 11.25
What are snowie_m snowie_c snowie gnubg_m gnubg_c gnubg ?! >So given these numbers I suggest that we adapt snowie's rate/rating >groupings, but that we divide the gnubg move-error and total-error rates >with 2 and the cube error rate by 4. That way it will be easy for people >to understand the numbers and to compare an intermediate snowie player >to an intermediate gnubg player. Of course the move ratings and the >total ratings of gnubg will not be directly comparable. But it will >complicate things unnecessary to make it any different. In match stats there's a "Equiv. Snowie error rate", so why not adding an "Equiv. Snowie overall rating" based on the "Equiv. Snowie error rate" (using same grouping as Snowie) ? This would be Snowie-like without changing gnubg rating system ... MaX. _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
