RE: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings

[Albert Silver]

> > > >>Error rate (per decision)       -13.86 ( -0.036%)    -21.97 ( -
> 0.075%)
> > > >>Error based abs. FIBS rating    1936.0               1866.3
> > > >>Chequerplay errors rating loss    95.9                131.8
> > > >>Cube errors rating loss           18.1                 51.9
> > > >
> >
> > I don't have direct experience of FIBs, but it surprises me that
with
> > a chequer error rate of about .020/move (two beers behind Joern?),
the
> > estimated ratings would be 1700 odd in the first match and 1866 in
the
> > second.
> 
> That .02  is NOT a chequer error  rate but an overall  errror rate.
That
> fact may lessen your surprize.

Not really. The checker error rate was around 0.013 to 0.014, which in
my book is very poor and deservedly described as only Intermediate. 
 
> > I sort of have serious doubts about the practicality of trying to
> > correlate a single short match to a rating which is supposed to be
> > accumulated over a large number of matches.
> 
> Of course it's only an indicator.  "If you'd play like this always
you'd
> have a rating of XYZ" is what it indicates. Yet on average (over a
large
> number) of  matches I found the  current FIBS estimator  to be
extremely
> accurate.

This is the first big problem I'm having with this. My current average
rating according to GNU, using the new formula, is somewhere between
1850-1900. Probably closer to 1850, but this is unimportant. This is
extremely flattering, but my FIBS rating is about 150 points less. None
of this is exagerrated. It's quite possible I am incredibly unlucky
since in many, if not most, of my matches I play better than my
opponents, according to GNU, but this last item may be sour grapes so
I'll compile some results before affirming this. One thing is 100%
certain: in my last 20 matches, I have only twice had GNU give me a
rating in the 1700s, not one time below, and my rating is around 1700 at
FIBS. 
 
> If someone  gives me a large  bag of .mat  files I can analyse  them
and
> tabulate the  estimated (error based) ratings for  comparison with
their
> actual ratings if known.

I'll separate all my FIBS matches, and start saving them to send to you,
plus our ratings. Just tell me what you need exactly.

> > In the meantime, I find the one word summaries more useful than the
> > estimated ratings when skipping through a long match to find my
worst
> > blunders. Awful/beginner/casual player (okay, that's two words) are
a
> > sign that I really ought to have a look at what I did wrong, the
rare
> > ET matches I can usually skip as far as learning goes.
> 
> So the textual scores need to be aligned with the rating version.

I'm having some reservations on this now. I have seen a couple of huge
error rates (what I'm accustomed to thinking of as absolutely dreadful
play overall) be rightfully described as Casual Player by GNU, and still
get a very high rating. I'm not sure I want to start finding those huge
error rates be called World Class or Expert as this would be way off
IMO. Right now I'm inclined to leave the textual ratings untouched. 

Don't get me wrong, I am very appreciative of your efforts, but right
now there are problems that need resolving IMHO.

                                                Albert

> 
> Kees