bug-gnubg
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Jim Segrave
Subject: Re: [Bug-gnubg] Re: Strange FIBS ratings
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2003 20:32:48 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.4i

On Mon 08 Sep 2003 (19:05 +0200), address@hidden wrote:
> On Mon, 8 Sep 2003, Jim Segrave wrote:
> 
> > > >>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.

But if we look at the full figures Albert quoted:

Overall statistics                                                    
Error rate (total)              -2.769 (-29.273%)    -1.134 (-14.183%)
Error rate (per decision)       -51.28 ( -0.542%)    -20.25 ( -0.253%)
Equiv. Snowie error rate        -26.37               -10.80           

Overall rating                  Awful!               Casual player    

Actual result                    +50.00%              -50.00%         
Luck adjusted result             -11.78%              +11.78%         
Luck based FIBS rating diff.    -186.55                               
Error based abs. FIBS rating    1465.2               1704.0           
Chequerplay errors rating loss   353.5                344.7           
Cube errors rating loss          231.4                  1.3              

The left hand column has an overall error rate of .020 
The Cube errors rating loss is 1.3, chequer play is 344.7, which
suggests very strongly that cube errors were not a factor here, and
that the overall error rate comes from chequer errors. The Fibs rating
is 1700.

Colour me surprised.

I have noticed similar estimated ratings vs. chequer play error rates in my own
games (unlike Albert, Intermediate is about all I achieve with any
regularity. And, for a laugh, here's a 7 point match I played far too late at
night with embarassingly bad play, in fact, simply appalling play:

Player                          gnubg                   jes                    

Chequerplay statistics

Total moves                     102                     100                    
Unforced moves                   82                      87                    
Unmarked moves                    0                       0                    
Moves marked good               102                      91                    
Moves marked doubtful             0                       2                    
Moves marked bad                  0                       1                    
Moves marked very bad             0                       6                    
Error rate (total)              +0.000                  -2.008 (-28.921%)      
Error rate (per move)           +0.000                  -23.08 ( -0.332%)      
Chequerplay rating              Supernatural            Casual player          


Luck statistics

Rolls marked very lucky           1                       2                    
Rolls marked lucky                6                       7                    
Rolls unmarked                   91                      89                    
Rolls marked unlucky              4                       1                    
Rolls marked very unlucky         0                       1                    
Luck rate (total)               +2.643 (+35.619%)       +1.677 (+25.521%)      
Luck rate (per move)            +25.91 ( +0.349%)       +16.77 ( +0.255%)      
Luck rating                     Good dice, man!         None                   


Cube statistics

Total cube decisions             43                     105                    
Close or actual cube decisions   26                      30                    
Doubles                           5                       3                    
Takes                             0                       3                    
Passes                            3                       2                    
Missed doubles around DP          0                       6 (+0.376 ( +4.341%))
Missed doubles around TG          0                       0                    
Wrong doubles around DP           0                       0                    
Wrong doubles around TG           0                       0                    
Wrong takes                       0                       0                    
Wrong passes                      0                       1 (+0.009 ( +0.060%))
Error rate (total)              +0.000                  -0.385 ( -4.401%)      
Error rate (per cube decision)  +0.000                  -12.83 ( -0.147%)      
Cube decision rating            Supernatural            Intermediate           


Overall statistics

Error rate (total)              +0.000                  -2.393 (-33.322%)      
Error rate (per decision)       +0.000                  -20.45 ( -0.285%)      
Equiv. Snowie error rate         -0.00                  -11.84                 
Overall rating                  Supernatural            Casual player          
Actual result                    +50.00%                 -50.00%               
Luck adjusted result             +39.90%                 -39.90%               
Luck based FIBS rating diff.    +717.78                                        
Error based abs. FIBS rating    2050.0                  1752.7                 
Chequerplay errors rating loss     0.0                   287.2                 
Cube errors rating loss            0.0                    10.1                 

Now you're telling me that an average chequer play error of .023, an average
cube error of .13 an overall error rate of .020 is 1750 level play on FIBs? 

I find that difficult to credit.

-- 
Jim Segrave           address@hidden




reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]