[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums

Side question: definition of blunder

Posted By: Daniel Murphy
Date: Tuesday, 21 February 2012, at 7:37 p.m.

In Response To: Side question: definition of blunder (Carlo Melzi)

Terminology A B
Doubtful, Error, Possible Error0.000 0.010 (0.5%)
Bad, Error 0.030 (1.5%)0.040 (2%)
Very bad, Blunder 0.060 (3%) 0.080 (4%)
Very very bad, Whopper 0.100 (5%) 0.100 (5%)

Above, four thresholds in each range, but Gnubg (and XG also?) uses only three for marking moves.

A number in parentheses is the amount of GWC lost at DMP by that size error. Giving up 3% GWC seems like a very bad error. Blunder seems a good term for that size error.

I would use 0.000 0.030 0.060 for analysis of my own play if the analysis were more often correct, if I were a better player, or if I spent more time studying. But I use 0.010 0.040 0.080 because 0.000 flags too many plays that either aren't errors or are errors smaller than I want to spend much time on. I make more than enough larger errors to fill my post-bot analysis thinking time. I have sometimes set the lowest threshold to 0.000, when I have more time and want to explore more thoroughly some of the kinds of plays that 0.000 tends to flag more often (very close opening, bear-in and bear-off choices).

Messages In This Thread

 

Post Response
Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:
Subject:
Message:

If necessary, enter your password below:

Password:
 

 

[ View Thread ] [ Post Response ] [ Return to Index ] [ Read Prev Msg ] [ Read Next Msg ]

BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.