On Thu, Mar 30, 2006 at 06:01:09PM +0200, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > >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 ?! >
sorry, thought this would be clear. All error rates, computed the snowie way first, and the gnubg way second. (m)oves, (c)ube and total. > 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) ? Because there is more than enough info in the stats already and I more or less now the translation. > > This would be Snowie-like without changing gnubg rating system ... > I am not looking to change the system , just the rate->rating translations. Christian. _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
