| |
BGonline.org Forums
An example
Posted By: Matt Cohn-Geier In Response To: An example (David Rockwell)
Date: Saturday, 30 June 2012, at 3:15 a.m.
Out of curiosity, I revisited the Hank Youngerman thing. For those who are unaware, there is a post here: http://www.bkgm.com/rgb/rgb.cgi?view+1386
3) Youngerman makes few substantial errors according to Jellyfish.
In the 22 matches analyzed, Youngerman made 0 checker play errors of size 0.050+ according to Jellyfish, and only a couple of errors between 0.040 and 0.049. This is strong evidence not only that Youngerman got help at least some of the time, but that he had help on the vast majority of the moves. Even top human players often make large blunders due to overlooking plays or misjudging the strengths of positions that are hard to compare. The analogous cubeful size is about 0.070; top players (including Tardieu) routinely make blunders larger than 0.110 every few hundred moves even when they have low error rates. It is extraordinary that Youngerman made no checker play blunders, and nothing close to a blunder.
Jellyfish has a mode in which it will alert you only if you are making a mistake larger than a particular threshold (View->Settings->Comments; uncheck Show best moves, check Comment moves, choose threshold). I believe Youngerman either used this mode with an error threshold of 0.020-0.040, or else intentionally introduced what he believed to be small errors based on Jellyfish's evaluations.
If that isn't a shining example of data mining then I don't know what is.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.