Ok, thanks. A change must have been made after the first version and I simply wasn't aware of it. I'll fix it.
Albert On 12/16/06, Jim Segrave <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sat 16 Dec 2006 (11:43 -0300), Albert Silver wrote: > Hi all and merry Christmas, > > I received the following question regarding the tutorial, and included my > reply. > > >1. Comparing some information with the "GNU Backgammon Handbook" on > >http://www.gnubg.org/win32/gnubg/gnubg.html#Analysing I found a > >difference between the definition of error rates in those two sources. > > > >You state: > >0.0000 - 0.0017 Supernatural > >0.0017 - 0.0062 World Class > >0.0062 - 0.0083 Expert > >0.0083 - 0.012 Advanced > >0.012 - 0.018 Intermediate > >0.018 - 0.026 Casual Player > >0.026 - 0.035 Beginner > >0.035 - infinity Awful! > > > >The GNU Backgammon handbook says: > >0.000 - 0.002 Supernatural > >0.002 - 0.005 World Class > >0.005 - 0.008 Expert > >0.008 - 0.012 Advanced > >0.012 - 0.018 Intermediate > >0.018 - 0.026 Casual Player > >0.026 - 0.035 Beginner > > > 0.035 Awful! From the source:, analysis.c const char *aszRating [ RAT_UNDEFINED + 1 ] = { N_("Awful!"), N_("Beginner"), N_("Casual player"), N_("Intermediate"), N_("Advanced"), N_("Expert"), N_("World class"), N_("Supernatural"), N_("N/A") }; static const float arThrsRating [ RAT_SUPERNATURAL + 1 ] = { 1e38f, 0.035f, 0.026f, 0.018f, 0.012f, 0.008f, 0.005f, 0.002f }; which make the figures the handbook vaues you quote above (0.000-0.002 = Supernatural, for example) -- Jim Segrave [EMAIL PROTECTED]
_______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
