mdbc mdac wdbd wdtg wt wp cue che snwE gChE gCuE gnuE
Anthon 0.30 0.10 0.10 0.11 0.13 0.16 0.90 3.42 4.31 8.29 15.87 9.21
my
snowie-error is 4.31, gnubg checker-error is 8.29, gnubg cube-error
15.87 and gnubg total-error is 9.21. So approximately the gnubg checker
and total errors are twice as high as the snowie-errors and the gnubg
cube-error is four times the snowie error. Assuming that I am at the
same level at cube and checker-play I think that a rating of expert in
all four categories would be correct. However, gnubg doesn't translate
the snowie error-rate and translates all three gnubg-error-rates in the
same way, which is clearly inconsistent.
Other people will of course have different error rates, but the ratios (1:2:2:4) applies to most people for whom I have reliable statistics.
Christian.
Other people will of course have different error rates, but the ratios (1:2:2:4) applies to most people for whom I have reliable statistics.
Christian.
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
