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

BGonline.org Forums

Suggested Idea for Performance Grading

Posted By: Timothy Chow
Date: Sunday, 5 October 2014, at 6:41 p.m.

In Response To: Suggested Idea for Performance Grading (Coolrey)

Coolrey wrote:

The "winning zone" exists in the range of 4.0 to 5.5, in my opinion.

Are you implicitly assuming here that people aren't ever going to be able to completely eliminate "unintentional" errors from their game?

Or to put it another way: Suppose that I somehow were able to cheat and get the bot verdict on every play, but were free to attempt point-stealing if I wanted to. Do you think I would be playing 4.0 to 5.5? My feeling is that I would probably be averaging a 2.0 at most in the long run. Sure, sometimes I would offer a super-whopper cube and elicit a delicious pass, and XG would award me a 50+ PR for that particular game, but this alone would not drive my long-term PR all the way up to 4.0. PR is driven primarily by checker play, and unless you think there are lots of checker-play whoppers that will increase your chances against weaker players, I don't see any way to get up to the 4.0 to 5.5 range.

The closest thing I can think of is something like your strategy against Mochy in that famous Dual Duel, going into a crazy superbackgame. Do you mean to include that when you talk about "point stealing"? I don't follow your games; do you, on a regular basis, steer into super-backgames against weak players in order to increase your winning chances?

When playing against players that I know very well, I will sometimes intentionally make checker-play errors, but the opportunity doesn't arise that often. For example, there's one player I know who has a systematic habit of breaking anchor too readily in a mutual-holding game, especially if I have a blot in my board. So I will sometimes intentionally leave a blot in my board to elicit the blunder. But I won't do that if leaving the blot is a whopper rather than a relatively small error.

M1 sounds better than M3. #1 should be the top dog, not number 3.

The main argument against this, which I feel is a strong one, is that Rick's method keeps open the possibility of creating a new top class in the future.

Messages In This Thread


Post Response

Your Name:
Your E-Mail Address:

If necessary, enter your password below:




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

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