On 9/29/2025 8:46 AM, Francesco Ariis wrote: > Il 28 settembre 2025 alle 23:35 Robert-Jan Veldhuizen ha scritto:
>> Your formulas are correct. > Very good! "Skill + Luck = 1" is a fanciful fallacy. What is correct is your understanding of it. >> ... You'll probably find that doing luck analysis at higher settings >> reduces (but does not remove) the discrepancies between error >> analysis and luck analysis. > This would indeed be very useful. Now that ways to set the luck analysis at higher plies (with no need to modify the C code) have been explained, did you make use of it? Did you *probably* "find that doing luck analysis at higher settings reduces (but does not remove) the discrepancies between error analysis and luck analysis"? How *probable* was it? By how much did it reduce the discrepancies? Come on guys, do the work. Try to offer something real and useful instead of vague speculations. Analyze the same set of matches at 0 and 2 plies and share your results. Then we can talk about facts not fantasies. > Il 29 settembre 2025 alle 01:36 Murat Kalinyaprak ha scritto: >> BTW: This is not DailyGammon owned by your "control freaks"... >> You may get deservedly slapped for any garbage you spew... > Please, let us not abuse people answering questions! Oh, do you consider he *answered* your question then? I thought your question was a rhetorical one to make people accept what is an observable, demonstrable fact, i.e. "Skill + Luck = 1" is a total bullshit, way beyond mere inaccuracies (not only due to analysis levels but also and more so due to equities [extrapolated using jackoffski formulas and circular match tables] being wrong). BTW, what's wrong with a little "brusqueness"..? What happened to "not suffering fools gladly, not even imprecision"..? MK
