Life In 19x19

Careful first steps also seem possible instead of banning suspicious accounts. For example, OGS already does quick bot reviews of finished games. This could be used to collect error distribution statistics for each player similar to this .

If this is then presented as part of the player profile ...

Imagine that 19x19 is solved. What do you think, KataGo (the best network, by default) makes the best move 1 time out of 5? out of 10? Recently I was surprised to see that even as weak as low dan play have around 30% of moves below 0.5 pts error according to Katago (with 15-20% even in the middle ...

Black to play rounds up the score This was the point that seemed problematic the other thread. If rounding direction depends on sente, then 6.1+sente is better than 6.7+gote. If there is no rounding in chilled go, then correct play there (which presumably maximizes the chilled/fractional score) is ...

This came back to me half-asleep this morning, and some of my remaining doubts were resolved.

It seems best to consider games with W and B as two different games played alternately, and always use the weaker player's view. If performances would be on continuous scale, normals like usual, their ...

Draws hide the difference between players, so it is accounting for them rather than ignoring them that makes you think that they are performing equally poorly. I probably guess what you mean but it doesn't seem to apply here: vs perfect play draws (their frequency) are your ONLY source of ...

I think what matters is how hard it is to draw with either color, and how much harder it is to win than to draw. Cf this with the earlier problems of the distorted chess example (metrics, distances between results, 0.5+0.5<>1?) and the potentially differing reward for B and W draws below.

One ...

since correct play in chilled go is also correct play in territory go and also in area go What did I misunderstand then? I mean here:
If I understood Bill correctly a chilled score of 6.8 could be seen as better than 6.7 (and it actually is if we stop chilled), but two chilled scores of 6.6 are ...

Rounding came up in different contexts, the general sense that since board results are integer, subpoint mistakes will disappear - one way or another. So the resolution of performance measurement in a game is a whole point ("smallest scoring unit").

But if draws are not treated as draws, there may ...

Hm, maybe it's not just about rounding afterall, but the prob mass of draws (achievable with perfect komi) also matters? So the hypothesis about class bounds is true for integer komi, but for half point komi it depends on where the initial subpoint balance (error margins before next worse rounding ...

Btw doesn't CGT fail here? If I understood Bill correctly a chilled score of 6.8 could be seen as better than 6.7 (and it actually is if we stop chilled), but two chilled scores of 6.6 are the same. But since the rounding direction will matter for territory (an insanely lot at these levels), chilled ...

maybe by some chance Go with half-integer komi could have some partial element of this - or not, it's hard to tell But there IS actual, meaningful rounding in go. As I wrote earlier, there is no real half point komi in integer games. Chinese with 7.5 komi is actually komi 7 with W winning ties ...

Ah, it seems possible to estimate the stone rank of perfect play even directly!

Making a bunch of simplifying assumptions (which are all surely somwhat incorrect but may not bad enough to completely ruin the estimate) it seems sd may decrease roughly linearly per dan rank. This is because if the ...

Thanks from me too, and sorry, didn't want to keep arguing (not about the draw version at least), just wrote my thoughts on how I interpret your phenomenon from Elo and other strength metric viewpoint. I also learned new things (also about Bill's chilled scores indeed), and even got a fun idea from ...

About the drawless version: doesn't variant A and B collapse there as well? Or are you ok with nonperfect players beating perfect play with BOTH colors? And - I didn't realize this at first :) - version C is pure illusion, a swindle. It rounds away from zero, exactly as I mentioned earlier, which is ...

The game is exactly the same except now the grid is on all the integers (...-2,-1,0,1,2,...) and the game starts at 0.499999 (so with perfect play with both players always flipping zeros on cards, the game is a draw). Thanks! I'm not sure how you meant your last comment? It seems variants A and B ...