>I didn't mean it was close with my example. Perhaps I've >misunderstood, but I was under the impression that these 'close calls' >really meant what range of equity loss it would use to consider a >double into the number of decisions it judged a human made for the >rating. In other words it would count how many cube decisions the >human had to make, and the ones it counted were the 'close decisions'. >My point was to show that even if that blunder in my example hadn't >been made, I'd prefer it if GNU considered it as one of the decisions >made, and not skip over it simply because the size of the equity loss >made it not worth considering. It *is* worth considering because a >human would likely debate it, and doesn't matter whether GNU thinks it >a big mistake.
Close or actual cube decisions = decisions where the equity swing (between the right one and the wrong one) is smaller that the threshold. There's no easy and realiable way to estabilish with an algorithm if a cube decision, even if "easy" in terms of equity/error, could be a tough one for a human player. Hence two approaches: either you count everything (Snowie) either you count only the "close ones" (gnubg). MaX. _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
