Hello Robert-Jan, Il 28 settembre 2025 alle 23:35 Robert-Jan Veldhuizen ha scritto: > Hi Francesco, > > Your formulas are correct.
Very good! > An important distinction between error analysis and luck analysis, is that > the latter is unbiased. Which means that in the long run, the luck analysis > numbers will approach the real values (inaccuracies of the bot will cancel > out).This is not the case for error analysis, where inaccuracies of the bot > may not cancel out and sometimes even pile up. Many thanks for the explanation. I fetched pencil and paper, and indeed it is easy to see L is an unbiased estimator, by construction. [1] [1] Detailed in https://www.bkgm.com/articles/Zare/HedgingTowardSkill.html > With GnuBG, I believe the default luck analysis is unfortunately (still) > set to 0-ply and not changeable from the GUI. 0-ply luck analysis is quite > inaccurate. With a command "set analysis luckanalysis plies 2" (or even > higher, although that might be slow) you can improve the quality of the > luck analysis significantly. 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. Browsing the code, I think this is the place https://cgit.git.savannah.gnu.org/cgit/gnubg.git/tree/analysis.c#n205 Alas, I am far from proficient in C. Thanks again! —F 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!
