On Monday 03 April 2006 14:18, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >My point was not all that clear I can see. What I would like to achieve > >is. > > > >1) That an expert snowie player is an expert gnubg player, and > >vice versa. > > > >2) That an expert chequer player is an expert cube player, and vice > >versa. > > > >3) That people would actually cite the gnubg rates and ratings, which > >nobody does today. > > > >4) That gnubg's system is easily understood and that the numbers > >translates to snowie's in a straight forward way. > > > > SNIP ... SNIP ... > > > >I only suggest changing the translations, not the numbers. > > Hmmm ... personally I've never used Snowie so I'm not a fan of adjusting > gnubg > rating scheme (trnslation) to Snowie's one. I still think that an > 'Equiv. Snowie > Rating' should do the job. More coplicate would be to make it optional : > use gnubg rating or snowie rating ... > > BTW, I'm almost often rated Expert by gnubg : if Snowie rates me above > that (WorldClass) I think it's rating scheme has a problem :)))) >
Fine by me to keep the numbers as they are. But oh pretty please lets divide the cube_error rate by two before translating to export/worldclass/... As you can see the cube error rate is twice as high as the move and total error rates for the average player. Christian. -- "I can't promise that I'll try. But, I'll try to try." -- Bart
pgpS4EF82imhL.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
