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

[kvandoel]

Hi Albert,

Never mind, I converted the files myself.

Full results are attached for you. One file is with your analysis, other
with  a  fresh  0-ply  analysis   only.   Note  there  is  no  noticable
diff. between 0ply and your 2ply estimates.

As you can see it is close to what you reported, so at least we agree:

1862 +- 23 (actual 1700).

I have no definite explanation for why it is so far off your 1700 rating,
but possibilities are:

1) The estimation is flawed; human play can't be modeled by noise.
2) You have made a recent quantum leap in playing strength
3) Luck (the variance of 23 is not reliable as estimated from the actual
variations in R over a small set of 27).

How to explain  it works so precisely for myself?   Maybe because I only
have been playing for a few  years and have learned mostly from bots and
therefore my "style" is bottish and better modeled by noise than yours?

What  is needed  now is  more analysis  of games  by players  with known
ratings for validation/refutation. I am willing  to do the work if I get
the data to work on.

Kees

silver.zip
Description: s