From: Albert Silver Sent: 25 July 2006 16:53 > > Albert Silver Sent: 25 July 2006 16:11 > > > Ex: > > > > > > Move 1 - Correct Play: D/Take Played: No double My > Error: -0.048 > > > Move 2 - Correct Play: D/Pass Played: No double My > Error: -0.178 > > > Move 3 - Correct Play: too good Played: D??/Take?? My > Error: -0.078 > > > > > > In this case, the take was a (supposing) 0.560 mega blunder. > > > It couldn't be much less for taking a double in a Too > Good position. > > > In this case, since there was a blunderous Take, not only is the > > > wrong double deducted from the equity lost by the take, but the > > > immediately preceding errors I made by not doubling are > also added > > > up. This gives 560 - 48 - 178 - 78 = a single 0.256 > blunder for my > > > opponent. > > > > This is simply wrong. Your opponent has made a 0.56 > blunder, and must > > be charged for it irrespective of your errors. > > The point is to balance out my error with his. If in absolute > terms, I did indeed sacrifice equity, to gain further equity, > then that sacrificed equity shouldn't be ignored, should it? > Since the idea is to not be punished for this, the only > logical way I see is to deduce it from larger equity loss of > my opponent.
His error is still 0.56. There is more of a case for adjusting your error by: -0.078 - -0.56 = +0.482 i.e. a positive blunder in your favour. Do you go back to Move 1 and also adjust the -0/048 error? If Move 2's correct action was ND/T, would move 1 still be re-evaluated? This is what I was referring to when I talked about taking future moves into account - future from the current move's POV. I can understand the desire to reward error-inducing plays, but I think that it is impossible to come up with a logical and consistent framework. You are trying to analyse the meta-game, not the game itself. -- Ian _______________________________________________ Bug-gnubg mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gnubg
