RE: [Bug-gnubg] What MET is loaded by default with standard installation?

[Albert Silver]

2 things:

- could you prepare a table to be used with gnubg?
- Could you prepare a simpler 2 decimal point table for us poor humans?
:-)

BTW, could you explain how it is developed?

                                                Albert

> -----Original Message-----
> From: address@hidden [mailto:bug-gnubg-
> address@hidden On Behalf Of Joseph Heled
> Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 11:42 PM
> To: gnubg
> Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] What MET is loaded by default withstandard
> installation?
> 
> Sorry, I take back what I said. I mistakenly thought I was using
Zadeh,
> but actually I typically use the table generated by mec.c
> 
> // (Copyright (C) 1996  Claes Thornberg (address@hidden)), using
> //    Gammon rate 0.2600
> //    Winning %   0.5000
> 
> It is somewhat close to Snowie 2.1 table.
> 
> For post crawford I use my own table from GNUbg rollouts. Here are the
> first values
> 
> { 0.50000,
>    0.484988779204,
>    0.3195,
>    0.302313595788,
>    0.18935485,
>    0.175375581897,
>    ...
> }
> 
> 
> I am close to completing 500000 7 point matches between Woolsey and
> mec26 (above) (at 0 ply of course). Result is near mec26 50.06% vs.
> woolsey 49.94, So I am pretty confident in my statement the woolsey
> table is not up to the task.
> 
> -Joseph
> 
> Robert-Jan Veldhuizen wrote:
> > I use the SW 2.1 MET, I think it's probably the best or second-best
MET
> > GNUBG provides. The Jacobs MET is the other one.
> >
> > The Zadeh MET doesn't seem very realistic to me, with f.i. 28.75%
MWC at
> > -2,-1Cr where simulations with GNUBG get a MWC percentage of well
over
> > 30; probably also over 31. The SW 2.1 MET gives 31.5% MWC for this
> > particular score; Jacobs gives 31.0%.
> >
> > Kit Woolsey's MET really lacks at least a third digit to the
entries.
> > This can sometimes produce pretty inaccurate results.
> >
> > For scores where both players are more than 15-away or even 25-away,
> > this only matters when someone plays a 15/25+pt match, and at these
> > scores the MET used probably won't make much difference anyway
(they'll
> > likely be very close to each other all). The interpolation GNUBG
uses in
> > these cases is probably sufficient for almost anything.
> >
> > It might be interesting to hear Neil Kazaross' opinion on this, as
he's
> > a very good and experienced match player.
> >
> >
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Bug-gnubg mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg