BGonline.org Forums

Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited

Posted By: Barry Silliman
Date: Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 1:51 p.m.

In Response To: Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited (Stick)

Stick, when using gnuBG for rollouts, which measurement are you using for your scale? Is it the 'Snowie error rate' value in the Overall tab? I think it is but I'd like to confirm.

If it is this value, I have a followup question. IIRC in previous threads you've said that while you strive for perfect checker play, with cube play you don't expect or even desire to make perfect cube play according to the Bots' preferences for reasons I won't rehash here. If this is so, then how do you factor out of the rating number the impact of this less than optimal cube play? Or, are you still expecting to play at less than 2.0 even when this "noise" from cube play is in the mix?

Messages In This Thread

• Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
  Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 12:21 a.m.
  • Ok, extra-terrestrial should exist
    Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 12:38 a.m.
    • Ok, extra-terrestrial should exist
      Coolrey -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 4:21 a.m.
      • something about error rates.
        Iancho Hristov -- Tuesday, 9 December 2008, at 5:07 p.m.
        • something about error rates.
          Matt Cohn-Geier -- Tuesday, 9 December 2008, at 5:36 p.m.
        • Does 2.5-3.5 is more appropriate for best players category?
          Mislav Radica -- Thursday, 11 December 2008, at 9:23 a.m.
          • or this one a little bit rigorous?
            Mislav Radica -- Thursday, 11 December 2008, at 9:27 a.m.
            • or middle road
              Mislav Radica -- Thursday, 11 December 2008, at 9:34 a.m.
          • Does 2.5-3.5 is more appropriate for best players category?
            Daniel Murphy -- Friday, 12 December 2008, at 5:40 p.m.
            • Does 2.5-3.5 is more appropriate for best players category?
              Matt Cohn-Geier -- Friday, 12 December 2008, at 5:47 p.m.
    • Ok, extra-terrestrial should exist
      neilkaz -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 9:05 p.m.
      • Error rates revised
        Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 9:48 p.m.
        • Hm, Novice or Awful! and Supernatural or Extra-terrestrial? *NM*
          Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 9:55 p.m.
          • Hm, Novice or Awful! and Supernatural or Extra-terrestrial?
            happyjuggler0 -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 10:24 p.m.
  • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
    Stick -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 1:02 a.m.
    • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
      Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 6:55 a.m.
    • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
      Barry Silliman -- Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 1:51 p.m.
    • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
      christian munk-christensen -- Sunday, 6 March 2011, at 8:29 a.m.
      • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
        Stick -- Sunday, 6 March 2011, at 4:13 p.m.
    • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
      Michael Depreli -- Sunday, 6 March 2011, at 2:24 p.m.
  • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
    Maik Stiebler -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 11:17 a.m.
    • ERs are just for quick report and comparison and fun
      Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 1:15 p.m.
      • ERs are just for quick report and comparison and fun
        Stick -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 1:19 p.m.
      • ERs are just for quick report and comparison and fun
        Matt Cohn-Geier -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 3:12 p.m.
        • ERs are just for quick report and comparison and fun
          Stick -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 3:18 p.m.
          • ERs are just for quick report and comparison and fun
            Matt Cohn-Geier -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 3:21 p.m.
            • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
              Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 8:50 p.m.
              • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
                Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 9:33 a.m.
                • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
                  Mislav Radica -- Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 4:28 p.m.
                  • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
                    Matt Cohn-Geier -- Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 4:58 p.m.
                    • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
                      Mislav Radica -- Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 6:28 p.m.
                    • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
                      Bob Koca -- Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 8:41 p.m.
                    • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
                      Martin -- Sunday, 7 December 2008, at 8:49 p.m.
                      • Reaching world class 3.8 level is possible
                        Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 8 December 2008, at 9:08 a.m.
    • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
      Matt Cohn-Geier -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 3:15 p.m.
      • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
        Daniel Murphy -- Monday, 8 December 2008, at 2:35 a.m.
        • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
          Matt Cohn-Geier -- Monday, 8 December 2008, at 9:17 a.m.
  • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
    Keene -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 4:30 p.m.
    • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
      Stick -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 4:36 p.m.
      • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
        Keene -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 7:29 p.m.
        • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
          Stick -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 7:36 p.m.
          • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
            Keene -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 10:01 p.m.
        • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
          Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 8:39 p.m.
    • There is a difference in the way gnu and snowie calculates snowie number
      rew -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 8:16 p.m.
      • There is a difference in the way gnu and snowie calculates snowie number
        Martin -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 8:31 p.m.
    • We can make suggestion for GNUbg developers
      Mislav Radica -- Friday, 5 December 2008, at 8:33 p.m.
  • Snowie's error rate ranges and names revisited
    phlegethos -- Thursday, 11 December 2008, at 3:35 p.m.
  • Error rate ranges and names revisited
    Leonardo Jerkovic -- Saturday, 5 March 2011, at 6:35 p.m.
    • Error rate ranges and names revisited
      Dmitriy Obukhov -- Saturday, 5 March 2011, at 7:34 p.m.
      • Error rate ranges and names revisited
        Leonardo Jerkovic -- Saturday, 5 March 2011, at 7:54 p.m.
        • Error rate ranges and names revisited
          Dmitriy Obukhov -- Saturday, 5 March 2011, at 9:50 p.m.
          • Error rate ranges and names revisited
            Stick -- Saturday, 5 March 2011, at 10:16 p.m.
            • Error rate ranges and names revisited
              Leonardo Jerkovic -- Saturday, 5 March 2011, at 10:48 p.m.
            • Error rate ranges and names revisited
              Dmitriy Obukhov -- Sunday, 6 March 2011, at 3:28 a.m.
              • Error rate ranges and names revisited
                Bill Calton -- Sunday, 6 March 2011, at 3:48 a.m.
              • Error rate ranges and names revisited
                Leonardo Jerkovic -- Sunday, 6 March 2011, at 9:53 a.m.
    • Error rate ranges and names revisited
      Stick -- Saturday, 5 March 2011, at 8:07 p.m.
      • Averaging under a 2 PR
        Timothy Chow -- Sunday, 6 March 2011, at 8:19 p.m.
      • Averiging under 2 PR
        Leonardo Jerkovic -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 5:06 a.m.
        • Averiging under 2 PR
          Stick -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 8:06 a.m.
          • Averiging under 2 PR
            Leonardo Jerkovic -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 7:52 p.m.
      • Error rate ranges and names revisited
        David Rockwell -- Wednesday, 9 March 2011, at 6:01 a.m.