Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: The importance of METs

[Douglas Zare]

Quoting address@hidden:

> On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Joseph Heled wrote:
> 
> > Here are the numbers.
> > E1 (woolsey wins both) - 31747
> > E2 (mec26 wins both)   - 32067
> > E3                     - 186186
> >
> > The verdict is?

Is this what has been touted as a 1.2% improvement? I would not conclude that
from those numbers. 
 
> I expected the correlation to be much higher - I am surprised that the MET
> used influences the outcome of more than a quarter of matches (although
> these MET's are much more different than Snowie and mec26)

Better variance reduction may fix this. If I understand your methodology, if the
length of a game but not the result depends on the MET, then the rest of the
match should be only slightly more correlated than independent trials starting
at the resulting match score. If so, you may find a greater correlation if you
make the rolls of each game independent of the number of moves made up to that
point. You could test why the matches diverge, too. 

Douglas Zare