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

[Nis Jorgensen]

Douglas Zare wrote:

>>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. 

Joseph said that the dice were duplicated on a per-game basis - which I
assume is the opposite of your assumptions above.

Nis