| |
BGonline.org Forums
Cube PR Vs. Checker PR
Posted By: Timothy Chow In Response To: Cube PR Vs. Checker PR (neilkaz)
Date: Thursday, 2 May 2013, at 3:50 p.m.
neilkaz wrote:
My feeling is that said error pissed away (.08) whether or not it was cube or checker oriented.
This would be true if errors were measured in terms of actual equity lost (in money games) or in terms of match winning chances (in matches), but the black magic used to compute EMG complicates matters.
In fact many of the largest checker play errors in emg terms occur when a cube turn is imminent and that magnifies the size of the error if there is no cube.
And this astute observation illustrates why it's not such a straightforward thing to use EMG to measure "how bad a mental error" something is.
For example, say my opponent misses a double. When it's my turn, I make a checker-play error. Then my opponent correctly doubles and I correctly take and the game continues.
In a parallel universe, we're playing the same game except that my opponent doesn't miss the double. I correctly take, and make the same checker-play error, and then the game proceeds as in the preceding scenario.
Typically, the size of my checker-play error, measured in EMG terms, will be about twice as large when my opponent misses the double. But in some sense, it's the same error in both cases. In a money game, I'd be throwing away essentially the same amount of money in either scenario. But somehow, EMG is punishing me for my opponent's lapse.
We could turn your observation around and argue that EMG assigns a misleadingly low number to checker-play errors after a cube turn, and those errors ought to be multiplied by some factor to give a more accurate sense of "how bad" the error is psychologically. This argument is not so different from Phil's argument that cube errors ought to be adjusted downwards.
| |
BGonline.org Forums is maintained by Stick with WebBBS 5.12.