Sure, but I think that 0.160 is to tight a window. Another example, which came to mind as soon as I sent the last note, was on holding games, or 3-pt anchors. Often the defending side is down by quite a bit in the race (10-20 pips) and the other side has escaped the checkers. It can be a No Double well outside of that 0.160 range, and yet I have seen many Intermediate/Advanced (GNU's rating) players drop them!
I think the terminology of 'close decisions' is the choking point here. The point is to determine the range of equity it will use to consider a cube decision as a genuine decision. The only point where I'd consider tightening up, or leaving it at 0.160 would be in non-contact races where the chance of such large cube mistakes is extremely low. However, for contact positions, I see (and make) so many blunders (WT, WP, MD, etc.) that to skip over them because they are larger than 0.160 is a genuine mistake IMHO. Albert On 9/5/06, [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>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
